Wht  %^m^  01 


H  U  i 


THE  REIGN   OF  LAW 


r\ 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by   Dt.  FL.FqVVoti, 


BL  240  .B32  1878 

Bacon,  Thomas  Scott,  1825- 

1904. 
The  reign  of  God,  not  "The 

•ro-i  rtn  of   1  ^w" 


'^ 


THE  REIGN  OF  GOD 


NOT  ^ 


"THE    REIGN    OF   LAW." 


A    NEW   WAY  {AND    YET   VERY  OLD)    TO  DECIDE    THE 

DEBATE    BETWEEN  "-SCIENCE''    AND 

RELIGIOUS    FAITH. 


\        hily(   6   1914 
Thomas  Scott  e-AGtus*:.^— ' 


THINE    IS    THE    KINGDOM. 


BALTIMORE: 
TURNBULL    BROTHERS. 

1878. 


PREFACE 


f  I  iHE  author  having  hatl  this  work  in  hand  for 
-*-  three  years,  and  having  given  to  it  all  the  time 
that  could  be  spared  from  other  and  important  em- 
ployments, has  found  certain  convictions  growing 
stronger  with  him  all  that  time.  The  first  is,  that 
what  is  here  presented  is  the  true  answer  to  the 
question  pending  between  Christian  Faith  and 
Modern  Science.  The  second  is,  that  no  modern* 
writer  brings  forward  this  truth  and  applies  it  to  the 
facts.  The  third  is,  that  religious  doubt  is  wider 
spread  and  more  threatening  with  every  day.  The 
last  is,  that  the  matter  as  here  treated  so  as  to  antici- 
pate and  remove  all  such  misconceptions  as  would 
obscure  the  truth,  is  so  vast  as  to  draw  into  a  mighty 
vortex  all  the  other  great  problems  of  thought.  He 
raust  therefore  quite  relinquish  the  hope  of  any  such 
complete  discussion  now  —  must  but  imperfectly 
notice  several  of  these  topics,  and  rather  remit  them 

♦And  yet,  as  will  be  seen,  it  has  appeared  under  some  of  the  greatest 
names  of  old,  but  not  in  this  application. 


IV  PREFACE. 

to  such  further  discussion  as  may  arise  upon  criticism 
of  the  present  writing. 

Yet,  no  such  matter  has  been  knowingly  passed 
over,  nor  anything  which  has  been  or  could  be  used 
in  argument  against  the  writer's  conclusions  been 
left  without  what  has  seemed  to  him  a  sufficient 
answer.  He  has  carefully  avoided  "  technical ' 
words  of  philosophy  or  theology.  His  hope  has 
been  to  use  such  plain  and  simple  English,  that  all 
sensible  persons  could  follow  his  meaning,  and  at 
the  same  time  not  to  evade  the  deepest  matters  of 
truth  which  belong  to  the  question.  That  question 
is  so  deep  as  to  require  much  thought;  but  it  is  none 
the  less  practical  and  urgent  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child  in  Christendom.  The  writer  is  confident 
that  even  if  he  can  be  proved  in  error,  he  will  by 
that  VQvj  process  give  his  critics  the  opportunity  of 
making  the  truth  more  clear  and  useful  than  it  is 
now.  In  any  case,  as  his  labor  has  been  one  of 
simple  love  to  Him  who  is  ^'  the  Light  of  the  world," 
his  only  wish  is  that  it  may  fare  as  shall  please  and 
glorify  Him. 

T.  S.  B. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  I. — Some  Serious  Facts  and  Questions.       .        1 

Doubt  prevailing  in  our  Day  more  serious  than  in  the 
Eighteenth  or  any  former  Century.  Causes  of  this. 
The  Arguments  for  Religion  not  religious,  not  posi- 
tive and  aggressive ;  in  different  language  from  that 
of  Holy  Scripture ;  most  of  all,  concede  the  false 
Notion  of  a  "Reign  of  Law."  The  Reign  of  God  as 
opposed  to  this.  The  "  usual  Order"  of  God's  Works 
not  the  same  as  a  "Reign  of  Law."  Illustration  of 
the  Neighbors  ;  of  a  young  Child.  Effect  of  the  latter 
Notion  upon  Prayer.  Not  a  Question  of  Words. 
The  essential  Meaning  of  Law.  The  "Reign  of 
Law  "  tends  to  Pantheism. 

CHAP.  II.— The  Two  "Reigns"  Contrasted.  .      19 

The  three  Alternative?  possible.  The  Reign  of  God 
does  not  deny  the  usual  Order ;  has  no  Difficulties 
for  Faith.  The  "  Reign  of  Law  "  has ;  is  a  mere  As- 
sumption. Christian  Anthropomorphism.  Extract 
from  Melville's  Sermons. 

CHAP.  III.— Is  THIS  A   Scientific    or  a  Religious 

Question? 25 

Scien 'c  knows  nothing  of  History.  "Book  of  Na- 
ture." Can  Men  collect  the  Facts  for  such  a  Con- 
clusion or  reason  well  to  it  ?  It  is  not  self-evident. 
How  only  we  can  know  what  God  did  in  the  begin- 
ning.   The  Question  tried  again  from  other  Aspects. 


Vi  TABLEOFCONTENTS. 

CHA.P.    IV.— Should    it    he    Tried    by    Natural 

Theology  ? 36 

What  is  Natural  Theolojjy  ?  —  Tested  by  our  own 
Memory  and  present  Thought;  by  the  Word  of  God. 
True  Meaning  of  "Word  of  God."  "Comparative 
Eeligiou."  Beginning  of  religious  Thought  among 
Maniiind.  Continuance  ever  since.  Growth  of  false 
Religion.  Original  Truth  never  quite  perishes.  Ar- 
gument for  Natural  Theology  from  Romans  i.  19,  20. 
Other  Objections  to  it.  How  invented  and  continued. 
Forbidden  in  God's  Word.  Latest  Error  of  Detail. 
General  ill  Results  and  no  good  Effect. 

CHAP.  V. — Comparative  Certainty  op  Knowledge 

BY  "Science"  or  by  a  "Word  of  God."    .        .      57 

Two  general  Sources  of  Knowledge.  Compared  as 
to  their  Subjects,  Importance  and  Certainty.  What- 
ever can  be  said  of  the  Imperfection  of  Language 
more  true  of  Science  than  of  God's  Word.  Moral 
and  spiritual  Welfare  the  most  important.  God's 
Word  only  certain  as  to  the  spiritual,  and  fallible 
as  to  the  natural?  Science  incomplete.  God's  Word 
complete.  Erroneous  Positions  of  "  F.  D.  H."  and 
others.    "Make  Room  for  all  the  Facts." 

CHAP.    VI.— Examination   of    Holy    Scripture  — 

Old  Testament 77 

Method.  A  Suggestion  of  Numbers.  Prof.  Jowett's 
Rules.  The  Divine  Story  of  Creation.  Objections 
made  to  it.  No  Mention  of  a  "  Reign  of  Law."  The 
Promise  of  Secd-Time  and  Harvest,  &c.  The  "  Row 
in  the  Cloud."  The  Patriarchs.  Moses  and  Joshua. 
Rest  of  Old  Testament  History.  Book  of  Job.  "  A 
Decree  for  the  Rain,"  «fec.  Psalms.  "A  Decree  which 
shall  not  pass,"  &c.  Proverbs,  &c.  "  The  Lord  by 
Wisdom,"  &c,  How  the  Early  Christians  understood 
this.  Teaches  intellectual  HurnUity  instead  of  Pride. 
The  Prophets.  "  Ordinances  of  the  Moon,"  &c  ,  and 
"My  Covenant  of  the  Day,"  &c.  Such  Passages 
flgurativc;  many  more  literally  declare  immediate 
Divine  Will  and  Power. 

CHAP.    VII.— Examination   of    Holy  Scripture  — 

New  Testament 106 

Hero,  if  anywhere,  wo  shall  find  the  "  Reign  of  Law." 


TABLEOFCONTENTS.  Vll 

Supernatural  Wonders  of  the  Nativity.  The  Temp- 
tation. Teachings  of  Our  Lord.  Lord's  Prayer. 
Miracles  of  the  Gospels.  The  Acts.  St.  Paul  at 
Athens.  The  Epistles.  "The  Counsel  of  His  Own 
Will."  **  God  giveth  it  a  Body,"  &c.  "Where  is  the 
Promise  of  His  Coming?"  The  entire  and  consist- 
ent Tenor  of  Holy  Writ.  Two  opposite  Ideas  of 
Man's  Life.  "Nature."  No  Notice,  but  actual  De- 
nial of  the  "  Reign  of  Law "  in  New  Testament. 
Passages  of  Old  Testament  usually  cited  do  not 
teach  it.    Value  of  fixed  Institutions  of  Religion. 

CHAP.  VIII.— History  OF  the  Notion  of  a  "Reign 

OF  Law." 127 

Difi'erent  Accounts  of  its  Origin.  Plato.  First  Men- 
tion of  "Nature"  and  its  "Laws."  Aristotle.  Lucre- 
tius. The  Advent  of  Our  Lord.  Christian  Stiidy  of 
Plato.    St.  Paul's  Notice  of  this  so^La. 

CHAP.  IX.— History  Continued 146 

Greek  Philosophy  again  studied  and  admired  by 
Christians.  Justin  Martyr.  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
Origen.  Others  protesting.  Augustine.  Chrysostom. 
Jerome.  The  Dark  Ages.  Saracen  Philosophers. 
Al  Ghazel.  Greek  Philosophy  again  in  Europe.  Rise 
of  Natural  Philosophy.  The  Reformation.  Bacon. 
Des  Cartes.  Later  Misrepresentation  of  him.  Spin- 
oza. Hooker.  His  Mistake  as  to  "  the  Counsel  of 
His  Own  Will."  Per  contra,  other  Words  of  Ms 
which  are  noble  and  beautiful.  Leibnitz.  The  Eight- 
eenth Century  in  England.  "  Christianity."  Nine- 
teenth Century  so  far.  Opposing  Influence  of  the 
Church.  The  Book  entitled  the  "  Reign  of  Law." 
Necessary  Tendencies  of  this  Notion.  Virtual  Admis- 
sion of  this  by  Christlieb. 

CHAP.  X.— The  Question  as  Touching  the  Free 

Will  op  Man 170 

Free  Will  a  great  Mystery  to  be  received  by  Faith. 
A  "Reign  of  Law"  forbids  this  Faith.  The  Free 
Will  of  Man  would  destroy  a  "  Reign  of  Law."  The 
Writer  of  "The  Reign  of  Law"  claims  to  maintain 
the  Freedom  of  Man,  but  really  denies  it.  God 
spoken  of  by  him  as  "  Mind  "  and  "  Will."  The  Am- 
bassadors for  God. 


Viii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  XL— The  Same  as  Related  to  the  Will 

AND  Love  of  God 180 

The  Will  of  God  is  the  sole  Power  and  Purpose  of 
all  Things.  It  is  profane  and  foolish  to  object  to  this 
as  '-Arbitrary.''  He  is  essentially  One  in  Will,  Love, 
Work.  Some  Writers  approach  to  this  great  Truth, 
but  fail  at  last  to  apprehend  it.  "  Correlation  of 
Forces."  Illustration  of  a  Railway  Train.  The 
"  Ileigu  of  Law "  makes  of  God  only  an  immense 
Man. 

CHAP.  XIL — Effect  of  the  Notion  op  a  '*  Reign 
OF  Law"  upon  the  Intkiipketation  of  Holy 
Scripture. 192 

The  Theory  of  a  remote  and  brutish  origin  of  Man. 
True  Account  in  Holy  Scripture.  Is  that  to  be  ad- 
justed to  the  New  Science?  The  Word  of  God  be- 
longs to  the  Church  of  God.  That  does  not  teach 
"Science,"  but  does  teach  Facts.  Its  Purpose  is 
Faith  in  God.     The  New  Method  undermines  Faith. 

CHAP.    XIII.— This    Actual    Interpretation    by 

Our  Present  Astronomy  and  Geology.      .        .    205 

We  ought  even  to  go  back  and  re-examine  what 
has  been  conceded  as  to  Creation.  Principles  which 
should  govern  in  such  Inquiry.  Unwise  Concession 
of  Bishop  Butler  as  to  "Natural  Religion."  "Cos- 
mogonies." Does  our  Age  know  too  much  for  the 
Old  Faith  y 

CHAP.  XIV.— The  Persecution  of  Galileo.  Is 
the  Notion  of  a  "Reign  of  Law"  Necessary 
to  Scientific  Investigation?        ....    213 

That  a  contest  between  two  scientific  Parties.  The 
Present  between  "Science"  and  obedient  Faith. 
Some  scientific  Advance  was  made  without  the  pres- 
ent Notion  of  "Law."  One  can  explore  the  Cosmos 
as  well  with  the  Idea  of  the  immediate  Will  of  God, 
as  of  a  "  Reign  of  Law."  Even  if  not,  religious 
Truth  more  valuable  than  scientific  Discovery. 

CHAP.  XV.— Moral  and  Spiritual  Effect.     .        .    221 

That  the  true  Theory   of  the  Universe  which  most 


TABLE     OF     CONTENTS 


ix 


promotes  our  spiritual  Good.  The  "  Reign  of  God  " 
makea  men  think  of  His  Person  and  Love.  The 
"Eeign  of  Law"  hinders  such  Thought.  The  Love 
of  God  the  great  Solution  of  all  these  Questions. 
The  one  Idea  encourages,  the  other  discourages 
Frayer  and  Praise,  and  Belief  of  Miracles.  Spiri- 
tual Grace.    "Interposition."    "Immutability." 

CHAP.  XVI. — "  Special  Providences." 

What  does  this  mean?  What  God  says  of  it.  "'■Can 
we  believe  it?"    Illustration  of  a  Eailway  Accident. 


236 


CHAP.  XVII.— Law .243 

This  not  a  mere  Question  of  Words.  Primary  Mean- 
ing of  Laiv.  God  is  the  Person.  New  Meanings. 
Effect  of  these  upon  the  Obedience  of  the  true  Law 
in  Religion;  in  Morals.  "Law  of"—.  "Duty." 
"Personal  Government." 

CHAP.  XVIIL— Results  Collected 259 


CHAP.  XIX. — Suggestions  and  Remonstrances.      .    267 

1st.  To  Plain  People :—  That  they  must  not  be  dis- 
turbed in  their  Faith  by  what  is  said  of  "  Laws  of 
Nature,"  «fec.,  nor  pray  to  God  and  thank  Him  any 
the  less.  2dly.  To  those  with  whom  Argument  from 
Holy  Writ  has  no  Force :— We  have  Sympathy  as 
Seekers  of  Truth.  Either  dismiss  the  Assumption  of 
a  "  Reign  of  Law,"  or  prove  it.  For  Truth's  Sak* 
examine  anew  if  the  Christian  Gospel  be  not  Truth. 
Is  It  not  worth  while  to  study  first  why  we  exist? 
Without  this  all  Life  unmeaning.  "Authority." 
3dly.  To  my  scientific  Fellow  Christians : —The 
"Ascertained  Verity"  that  Our  Lord  is  coming  to 
judge  the  World.  We  must  do  all  Things  in  our 
"Capacity ''  as  Christians.    The  Lord's  Prayer. 

Appendix  A.— Effect  of  Metaphysics  upon   Christian 

Doctrine 282 

Appendix  B.— The  Method  of  Examining  Holy  Scrip- 
ture pursued  in  this  Book.' 300 

Appendix  C. — Critical  Discussion  of  Ep.  to  Romans  I. 

18.— II.  16,  and  Cor.  I.  and  II.         .  .        .    306 


X  TABLE     OF     CONTENTS. 

Appendix  D. — Detailed  Review  of  the  '*  Reign  of  Law  " 

by  the  Duke  of  Argyll 317 

Appendix  E. — Detailed  Review  of  the  '*  Law  of  Love, 
and  Love  as  a  Law,"  by  Mark  Hopkins,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  &c.  . 348 

Appendix  F. — Reflections  upon  the  Misuse  and  Mis- 
chief of  Abstract  Terms 364 

Appendix  G. — A  Meditation  upon  the  Eternity  and 
Self-Existence  of  God,  and  the  Modern  Theory  of 
"Conscience."  .  ....    373 


THE  REIGN  OE  GOD 

NOT 

"The  Retg-TL  of  Lcuw,'' 
CHAPTER   I. 

SOME    SERIOUS    FACTS    AND    QUESTIONS. 

ALL  people  in  the  Christendom  of  this  age  who 
read  newspapers  and  new  books,  are  thinking 
and  arguing  about  one  of  the  greatest  of  possible 
questions,  viz.  Avhether  men  can  now  rationally 
believe  the  Articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  in  what 
has  at  least  until  now  seemed  their  plain  sense.  And 
since  more  people  do  now  read  and  argue  than  ever 
before,  and  this  number  continually  increases,  and 
even  now  virtually  includes  all  the  people,  the 
controversy  never  before  was  of  such  practical  im- 
portance. 

There   is   yet  another   fact    which    increases    the 

seriousness   of   the    occasion.      In    any  former  like 

period,  as  for  example  the  days  of  Hume  or  of  Paine, 

the  discussion  was  not  only  more  than  now  a  contest 

1 


2  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

between  a  few  literary  persons,  but  it  was  scarcely 
known  to  any  but  the  men  that  there  was  any  such 
contest.  A  little  of  this  did  indeed  leak  out  frono. 
them  among  women  and  younger  people ;  but  the 
greater  seclusion  of  these,  the  continuing  traditions 
of  a  somewhat  religious  education  for  children,  the 
character  of  all  books  in  their  hands,  whether  for 
learning  or  amusement  (even  a  lingering  "  reverence 
for  youth  "),  kept  them  in  almost  total  ignorance  oi 
what  was  said  against  Christian  belief.  It  is 
altogether  different  now.  The  new  freedom  of 
manners,  especially  among  the  great  and  busy 
English-speaking  people,  and  yet  more  especially 
those  of  America,  and  the  restless  tendency  of 
modern  public  education  to  remove  religion  from 
schools,  combine  with  the  wonderful  multitudinous- 
ness  of  printing  and  reading  in  our  days  to  remove 
all  these  barriers.  Our  school-boys  and  school-girls 
devour  as  indiscriminately  as  their  elders  the  news- 
papers, magazines  and  entertaining  books  of  the  day  ; 
and  these  are  all  alive  with  that  great  question  of 
faith  or  doubt. 

Therefore,  let  none  of  us  too  easily  quiet  our  wise 
anxiety  about  such  questions  with  thinking  that  just 
such  threatenings  of  danger  to  faith  have  occurred 
before,  and  have  passed  away  without  justifying  the 
alarms  of  the  devout.  Nothin<^  can  be  more  stran^-e 
boj'ond  ])rcccdent  and  more  portentous  than  an 
unbelieving  intelligence  of  the  young.  The  very 
gateway  of  faith  in  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
eternal  life  throuc^h  Him  is  in  being  as  a  little  child. 


SOME   SERIOUS  FACTS  AND   QUESTIONS. 


So,  if  in  fact  a  generation  is  before  our  eyes  passing 
from  the  best  time  of  faith  into  the  peculiar  dangers 
as  well  as  the  special  strength  of  active  life,  in  blind- 
ness to  that  truth  which  is  nobler  and  more  necessary 
than  all  else,  what  can  we  hope  for  their  hard  and 
worldly  later  years  ?  And  soon  we  shall  all  be  gone, 
and  they  will  be  the  teachers  and  examples  of  those 
to  come  after. 

The  facts  are  as  stated,  whatever  our  account  of 
them  or  feeling  about  them.  The  writer  has  taken 
special  notice  of  them,  and  he  finds  the  same  impres- 
sion made  upon  other  thoughtful  observers.  But 
lately,  the  custodian  of  the  chief  libraiy  in  one  ot 
our  great  cities  said  that  he  was  anxious  that  in  this 
debate  the  side  of  faith  should  be  better  maintained 
against  its  opposers.  "For,"  said  he,  "doubt  is 
increasing,  especially  among  j^ounger  people ;  I 
have  occasion  to  see  it  here."  He  noticed  what 
books  were  most  called  for  and  read  with  most 
eagerness  and  satisfaction.  All  our  popular  "  periodi- 
cals "  in  the  same  way  strongly  reflect  as  well  as 
powerfully  affect  general  opinion.  So,  with  the 
young,  with  those  who  pass  for  having  the  most 
"  culture,"  and  even  with  our  plainer  i^eople,  grows 
the  notion  that  this  age  knows  too  much  to  be  as 
religious  as  some  men  used  to  be. 
.  As  one  of  the  thousand  indications  of  this  among 
the  powerful  people  whose  is  the  English  language 
(for  in  these  days  nations  are  such  rather  by  their 
common  language  and  ideas  than  by  governments — 
as  the  German-speaking    and   the  English-speaking 


4     THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

nations),  observe  this  fact.  It  is  now  eighteen  years 
since  the  celebrated  "  Essays  and  Reviews"  of  certain 
Oxford  scholars  appeared.  This  book  was  less 
notable  for  any  force  of  its  own,  than  as  a  symptom 
of  a  forcible  organized  effort  within  the  Church  of 
England  to  promote  opinions  as  Christian,  which 
would  once  have  found  no  advocates  among  Chris- 
tians. It  brought  forth  protests,  replies  and  refuta- 
tions quite  sufficient  to  counteract  its  arguments ; 
yet  its  spirit  and  credit  are  stronger  this  day  than 
ever. 

.  Certainly,  if  there  be  any  recent  change,  "  science" 
is  more  alien  to  Christian  faith  and  more  contemptu- 
ous towards  it  than  ever  before  among  the  English 
race.  Even  the  Christian  writers  of  science  seem 
more  scientific  than  Christian  ;  and  the  others  move 
on  with  an  assured  air  of  triumph  which  is  itself  half 
a  victory  over  general  opinion.* 

Why  is  this,  when  far  the  greater  advantages  for 
such  a  conflict  are  on  the  Christian  side,  namely,  real 
truth  and  the  favor  of  God  ?  Some  of  these  later 
advocates  of  faith  are  honest,  acute,  and  eloquent; 
though  it  must  be  admitted,  that  for  simple  clearness 
of  style  and  accuracy  of  language,  and  for  that 
earnest  and  lively  elegance  in  serious  writing  of 
which  Plato  is  the  great  example,  some  of  the 
promoters  of  unbelief  in  our  age  are  the  superiors. 
This  is  in  no  small  degree  the  cause  of  their  success. 
Yet,  what  a  trifling  matter  that  is  when  men  are 
deciding  what  they  will  receive  as  true  about  the 
great  God  and  their  immortal  destiny  ! 

*  H.  Spencer ;  Fiske's  Cosmical  Philosophy,  «S;c.,2?«mw. 


SOME   CURIOUS  FACTS  AND  QUESTIONS. 


We  have  reason,  therefore,  for  saying  that  the 
right  side  of  this  question  must  have  been  wrongly 
handled.  To  say  this  as  it  were  at  the  onset  of  the 
conflict — before  the  truth  as  so  presented  has  had  a 
reasonable  time  to  have  effect,  would  be  unfair.  But 
we  need  not  and  do  not  pass  our  judgment  hastily. 
We  should  also  allow  much  in  the  apparent  result 
for  something  in  the  will  of  God  beyond  our  judg- 
ment :  His  purpose  that  sometimes  these  things 
shall  turn  out  as  we  cannot  account  for  them.  Yet, 
the  matter  being  so  great  and  so  threatening,  let  us 
all  pause  and  ask  if  it  may  not  be  our  duty  to  find 
out  why  this  is  so  ;  and  what  more,  if  anything,  we 
ought  to  do. 

Is  there  not  something  wrong  in  the  usual,  not 
to  say  universal  method  in  which  faith  is  now 
defended?  The  present  writer  thinks  that  there  are 
several  points  in  which  that  method  needs  severely 
plain  criticism.  He  does  not  mean  this  for  a  spark- 
ling diatribe,  nor  for  a  smart  and  captious  "  review." 
He  wishes  to  observe  a  modest  deference  for  honor- 
able names;  to  keep  in  mind  that  it  is  of  no  advantage 
to  truth,  and  but  alow  ambition,  to  arraign  valuable 
writers,  expressing  dissatisfaction  with  all  they  say, 
and  holding  them  to  a  strict  account  for  it  if  they 
have  not  altogether  "  put  to  flight  the  armies  of  the 
aliens." 

Such  a  mean,  unjust  and  barren  purpose  is  not  his, 
as  will  appear  more  fully  as  he  proceeds.  He  would 
both  search  for  and  tell  plainly  what  mistakes  have 
been  made  in  this  sacred  work  ;  and  he  would  also 


6  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

propose  something  positive  which  he  thus  offers  to 
the  same  severe  criticism.     The  truth  of  God  con- 
cerning the  supreme  welfare  of  man  is  greater  than 
any  man's  or  all   men's  names  or  sensibilities.     So 
surely  will  all  Christian  thinkers  agree,  if  now,  even 
from  some  obscure  source,  should  come  any  suggestion 
that  will  help  in  the  vindication  and  triumph  of  faith. 
Of  such  mistakes  he  thinks  he  observes  the  follow- 
ing :   1st.  While  the  argument  is  about  religion,  it  is 
not  religious.     For   instance,    the    name    of    God   is 
perhaps  used  frequently ;   but  nothing  indicates  the 
thought  of  who  He  really  is.*    I^ow,  reverence  is  not 
merely  the  absence  of  irreverence.     Love  divine  is 
not  a  cold  word  to  be  tossed  out  like  a  counter  in  the 
game  of  debate.     Language  used  upon  these  themes 
cannot  be  "  scientific"  in  the  sense  of  excluding  that 
sentiment,   without    being   false.     Whatever    maj^  be 
true   in   other  investigation   about   ''  dry  light "    or 
"  white  light,"  obtained  by  banishing  all  feeling,  does 
not   apply  to  this.     Light   and  warmth,  truth    and 
love,  are  not  separable  here.     You  may  separate  the 
elements  of  vital  air,    then   experiment    upon    and 
explain   either  one  of  them,  and  finally  recombine 
them  as  air.     But  if  you  attempt  the  same  process 
with  the  man  who  lives  by  breathing  that  air,  and 
get  soul  and  body  apart  so  that  you  may  investigate 
the  latter,  you  no  longer  have  the  man  at  all,  but 
some  inert    matter,   and  you  never  can  make  that 
again  part  of  the  living  man.     Thus,  if  the  love  of 

*That  is  a  profoand  principle  of  the  Third  Commandment,  of  its  not 
specifyiui?  bhisphcray,  bu  the  "  taking  His  name  in  vain  "—uttering  that 
sacred  word  without  a  true  though   of  its  meaning  and  of  His  person. 


SOME   CURIOUS  FACTS  AND  QUESTIONS. 


God  is  excluded  from  thought,  we  shall  find  no  light 
of  truth  upon  these  transcendent  things.  All  our 
reasoning  is  mere  illusion ;  and  while  the  words 
occupy  us,  the  heavenly  "  things  they  signify  "  are  to 
us  unreal. 

This  intellectual  folly  of  the  Christian  "  men  of 
this  generation,"  would  indeed  produce  more  imme- 
diate fatal  effects,  but  by  the  mercy  of  God  there  is 
an  actual  inconsistency  between  it  and  their  real  life. 
They  think  and  write  and  read  about  God  as  if  in 
the  use  of  reason  they  must  keep  out  of  sight  of 
His  love  (which  is  in  tendency  and  in  inevitable 
ultimate  result  as  if  there  were  "  no  God  ")  ;  yet, 
they  are  in  fact  still  under  the  light  and  warmth- 
giving  rays  of  knowledge  of  that  love  as  it  shines  in 
the  Church  and  in  the  divine  Word.  And  yet,  if  there 
is  anything  which  is,  as  distinguished  from  "  accident," 
of  the  essence  of  the  conception  of  Him  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  our  life  on  the  other,  it  is  the  love  of 
God. 

"Then  the  mind  of  him  who  has  no  belief  in  this 
Divine  love  is  inaccessible  to  us  in  arguing  for  faith 
in  God?"  That  is  not  so  certain;*  and  if  it  were 
true,  it  would  be  much  the  less  of  the  evils  to  choose 
between.  ''  But  this  will  not  allow  us  to  be  logical 
with  the  reasoner  who  questions  this  faith,  and  ought 
to  be  answered  and  convinced."  Then  let  us  be 
true,  even  if  we  must  cease  being  logical.  We  have 
here  only  one  of  the  instances  of  the  incapacity  of 


*  For  while  we  have  uo  right  ever  to  omit  this/«c^  from  our  argnment, 
even  the  unloving  heart  feels  unconsciously  some  of  its  force,  and  its 
presence  takes  none  of  their  force  from  other  reasons  addressed  to  the 
mere  intellect. 


THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW.' 


our  reasoning  f\iculty  to  deal  with  the  highest  truth  * 
If  it  be  true  that  in  some  former  age,  and  in  a  lower 
form,  religious  faith  could  exist  without  the  idea  of 
Divine  love,  because  then  ignorance  and  superstition 
protected  it  from  intellectual  doubts  which  are  the 
weakness  (not  strength)  of  our  age,  the  true  correc- 
tive of  these  doubts  now  is,  not  more  intellectual 
effort,  but  the  vision  of  that  Love  by  faith. 

That  there  is  no  such  ignorant  narrowing  of 
thought,  when  we  refuse  to  separate  the  love  of 
God  from  the  search  of  truth  about  Him  or  His 
works,  may  be  seen  for  one  instance  in  the  example 
of  him  who  is  justly  regarded  as,  more  than  any 
other  one  man,  the  founder  of  modern  science. f 
Let  any  one  read  attentively  the  treatise  on  "  The 
Interpretation  of  Nature,"  or  the  opening  of  that 
on  "  The  Advancement  of  Learning,"  and  he  can  but 
see  that  not  only  the  language  and  mode  of  thinking 
of  the  writer,  but  his  express  rules  for  these  studies, 
are  opposed  in  this  respect  to  the  scientific  method 
of  our  time,J  of  Christian  writers  as  well  as  non- 
Christian,  while  they  accord  with  my  suggestion. 
The  case  is  indeed  very  much  stronger  when  the 
very  subject  of  argument  is,  as  it  is  not  usually 
in  Bacon's  philosophy,  though  all  so  religious  in 
spirit  —  truth  in  religion. 

(2)  Our  Christian  "  apologists  "  seem  too  literally 
apologists  in  the  modern   sense.     They  contend  for 

*  I  may  use  here  to  bettor  purpose,  Dr.  Newman's  motto  from  St. 
Ambrose  :  "  Non  in  dialectlca  complacuif.  Deo,  sahuni  facere  pojmlum 
suum.'"— ''It  hath  not  pleased  God  to  save  His  people  by  lojjiic." 

t  And  who  is  the  author  of  this  very  distinction  of  lumen  siccum. 

X  Perhaps  this  is  one  reason  why  Mr.  Huxley  is  so  jealously  unfriendly 
to  the  greutname  of  Bacou  as  a  philosopher. 


SOME  CURIOUS  FACTS  AND  QUESTIONS. 


the  faith  in  defence,  as  the  poor  Jews  in  Persia  were 
allowed  to  "  stand  for  their  life  "  against  Haman's 
party  ;  instead  of  moi;m^  against  all  opposing  opinion^ 
in  the  name  of  God.  Their  utmost  courage  seems 
exhausted  in  insisting  that  religion  is  independent 
and  equal  within  its  domain  to  science  within  its. 
They  exult  in  proving  to  their  own  satisftiction 
that  it  is  not  irrational  to  believe  as  a  Christian. 

The  Word  of  God  never  speaks  in  that  tone.  It 
assumes  immeasurably  higher  authority  over  all  else 
that  men  think  they  know.  It  assumes  such  superi- 
ority both  of  certainty  and  importance.  So  far  from 
asking  toleration,  it  will  not  tolerate  any  pretended 
equality  with  itself.  How  can  it  but  suggest  un- 
reality and  doubt  to  readers  of  modern  defences  of 
that  faith,  when  they  hear  only  this  cold,  negative 
and  hesitating  voice,  instead  of  that  imperative  and 
victorious  tone  in  which  the  Gospel  speaks  for  itself? 
We,  indeed,  are  not  prophets  and  apostles,  but  we 
are  the  heralds  (preachers*)  of  the  same  Divine 
proclamation,  and  have  no  right  to  declare  it  to 
others  as  of  less  than  the  absolute  authority  that  it 
claims.  So  by  example  for  us  did  its  first  heralds 
proclaim  it  alike  to  the  most  intellectual  Platonist 
Greeks  or  the  plainest  rustic  in  Galatia. 

"But  what  if  the  only  effect  you  have  upon  the 
scientific  doubter  is  to  make  him  smile  at  what 
seems  to  him  the  conceited  positiveness  of  the 
ignorant  ? "  It  is  sorrowful  to  think  that  this  is 
only  so  much   the  worse  for  him.     The  same  truth 


*K>;pvxfs'. 


10  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT  "TEE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

was  once  to  just  such  men  "foolishness";  but 
none  the  less  did  St.  Paul  hold  it  up  to  all  men 
alike  as  "the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God." 

(3)  It  is  a  great  defect  of  these  writers,  that  not 
only  in  this,  but  in  other  respects,  their  language  is 
very  different  from  that  of  Holy  Scripture.  This 
in  part  includes  the  faults  before  mentioned,  and 
also  that  which  is  to  follow.  It  is  also  in  part  their 
effect.  The  incongruity,  however  caused,  and  whether 
observed  or  not,  sends  a  chill  of  doubt  over  the 
reader.  The  faith  and  truth  of  God's  Word  are  felt 
(if  not  seen)  to  be  in  a  false  position.  And  so  the 
arguments  for  them,  however  ingenious,  are  in  the 
main  sterile. 

(4)  But  that  which  is  most  mischievous  of  all  I 
have  reserved  for  the  last  mention  here,  and  it  is 
the  main  subject  of  this  enquiry.  By  the  curious 
reciprocal  relations  and  influences  of  what  seem 
different  things,  and  yet  are  only  different  aspects  of 
the  same  thing  —  this  is  partly  cause,  partly  sign, 
and  partly  effect  of  the  others,  and  they  of  it.  It 
is  the  assumption  in  all  books  of  science  and  general 
literature  of  our  day,  and  especially  in  all  writings 
either  for  or  against  Christian  faith,  of  something 
called  "  the  reign  of  law."  This  is  the  hinge  of  the 
whole  present  controversy.  It  is  the  very  chosen 
ground  upon  which  the  forces  of  unbelief  form  their 
line  of  battle,  and  upon  which  the  soldiers  of  faith 
have  descended  to  construct  their  defensive  positions- 
and  make  what  resistance  ihQj  can  to  the  onset. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  the  following  discussion  to- 


SOME   CURIOUS  FACTS  AND   QUESTIONS.  11 

show  that  this  is  a  fatal  error:  that  the  "reign  of 
law"  is  a  mere  gratuitous  assumption,  unproved 
and  impossible  of  proof,  indeed,  contrary  to  our  best 
reason,  and  to  absolute  and  certain  truth  as  God  has 
uttered  it  directly  to  men.  It  is  one  of  the  signs  of 
how  far-  we  have  all  drifted  from  older  and  wiser 
ways  of  thinking,  that  one  of  the  latest  and  most 
generally  accepted  defences  of  Christian  faith  against 
doubt,  bears  this  very  title,  "  The  Eeign  of  Law." 
As  the  danger  of  such  false  notions  often  lies  in 
their  concealment  under  ambiguous  terms,  it  is 
fortunate  that  a  well-meaning  opposer  of  unbelief, 
whoso  position  makes  his  example  a  very  conspicuous 
one,  has  thus  exposed  so  plainly  the  real  character 
of  the  popular  error,  and  given  us  the  occasion  to 
contrast  it  with  the  Divine  truth  in  this  title  :  "  The 
Eeign  of  God  7iot  '  The  Eeign  of  Law.'  " 

Upon  fair  and  patient  study  of  the  whole  matter, 
we  shall  find  that  this  imagined  truth,  which  is 
assumed  to  be  the  highest  achievement  of  man's 
thought  as  well  as  the  guide  and  bond  of  all  further 
acquirement,  is  a  delusion  —  a  murky  cloud  of 
falsehood,  hiding  from  mankind  in  proportion  as  it 
prevails,  all  the  bright  heavens  and  the  vision  of 
the  Divine;  blinding  faith,  checking  prayer  and 
chilling  love.  Then  until  this  is  removed,  we  need 
go  no  further  to  find  why  our  arguments  do  not  stop 
the  advance  of  unbelief  Yet  the  notion  is  so  strongly 
intrenched  in  all  the  language  of  our  age,  allowed 
on  all  hands,  and  perhaps  until  now  disputed  by  no 
one  within  our  knowledge,  that  we  must  agree  to 
sit  in  trial  upon  it  patiently  as  well  as  courageously. 


13  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 

It  is  indeed  most  true  that  God  in  His  love  towards 
mankind  does  all  things  around  us  in  a  usual  order, 
and  gives  us  an  instinct  of  confidence  in  this  ;  so 
that  we  may  exercise  forethought  about  our  present 
life,  and  lay  up  from  generation  to  generation,  in- 
creasing stores  of  knowledge  about  the  material 
creation.  That  is  one  thing  ;  but  it  is  very  far  from 
the  same  as  that  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  "  which 
I  condemn.  The  former  no  way  confines  the  abso- 
lute will  of  God,  or  our  apprehension  of  it  in  faith, 
prayer  or  grateful  love.  The  latter  of  necessity 
does.  If  I  had  a  poor  neighbor  who  needed  every 
night  to  pass  a  dark  and  dangerous  place  near  me, 
and  I,  knowing  this,  always  placed  my  house-lights 
so  that  they  would  show  him  past  the  danger,  and 
also  informed  him  of  this  arrangement,  that  would 
be  no  sort  of  obligation  of  laio  to  me,  but  none  the 
less  useful  to  him.  It  would  not  abridge  my  freedom 
in  my  own  afi'airs,  nor  my  right  to  change  this 
custom  for  other  purposes  or  in  any  emergency ;  nor 
Xjay  liberty,  at  my  neighbor's  request,  to  remove  the 
light  for  special  occasions,  when  that  would  be  more 
for  his  advantage.  It  would  not  check  his  coming 
to  make  this  request  of  me,  especially  if  I  had  in- 
vited him  to  knock  at  my  door  at  any  time  upon 
such  errands  and  promised  him  a  favorable  hearing. 
(There  can  be  no  question  that  this  would  more 
promote  affectionate  feeling  between  the  two  parties 
than  if  the  light  on  the  poor  man's  way  was  pro- 
vided by  law.) 

The  theory  of  a  reign  of  law  is  entirely  different 


SOME   CURIOUS  PACTS  AND  QUESTIONS.  IB 

This  orderly  movement  is  no  longer  the  immediate 
will  of  One  who  is  love,  but  the  revolution  of  a  vast 
and  complicated  machine,  which  must  not  be  inter- 
fered with.  It  suggests  doubt  of  anything  which  is 
proposed  to  our  religious  faith  as  having  occurred, 
or  yet  to  be,  but  which  is  contraiy  to  this  invariable 
order.  The  Holy  Scriptures  speak  to  us  of  prayer 
and  miracles  without  proposing  or  acknowledging 
any  such  element  of  doubt. 

It  is  with  them  as  when  a  young  child,  who 
admires  his  father  for  all  that  is  noble  in  a  man,  and 
regards  him  with  happy  love,  asks  him  for  something. 
The  only  question  in  his  mind  of  obtaining  his  re- 
quest is,  whether  his  father  has  it  to  give  ;  or,  if  that 
be  so,  whether  he  will  think  it  really  good  for  him. 
There  is  no  notion  of  some  other  restraint  upon  the 
giver's  good  will,  which  checks  the  impulse  of  asking, 
or  the  hope  of  obtaining  when  he  does  ask. 

So,  and  far  more  so,  it  would  seem  that  a  devout 
Christian  would  always  pray  to  a  Father  in  heaven 
for  what  he  wanted,  with  simple  readiness  and  confi- 
dence. So  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  good  men  are 
always  represented  as  doing.  So,  in  fact  now  some 
religious  people  do,  especially  if  their  reading  is 
only  religious.  But  it  has  somehow  come  to  pass 
that  for  other  persons  than  these,  there  seems 
interposed  between  the  suppliants  on  earth  and  the 
ever  blessed  Grod  in  heaven,  something  beside  His 
gracious  will  and  power.  (This  is  not  as  when  a 
sublime  poetical  prophet  has  said,*  "  Your  iniquities 

*  Isaiah  lix.  2. 


14     TUE  KKIQN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 


have  separated  between  you  and  your  Grod."  That 
hiding  of  His  face  from  us  is,  we  know  as  Christians, 
removed  by  pardon,  when  we  pray  with  repentance 
and  faith  in  our  Lord.)  It  is  conceived  of  as  some- 
thing outside  of  our  spiritual  condition,  and  outside 
of  the  immediate  will  of  God  for  the  occasion.  It 
seems  to  require  of  Him  in  granting  our  requests, 
something  more  than  simple  will  to  do  what  we  ask  : 
that  He  must  first  set  aside  what  would  otherwise 
occur  —  must  "interpose"  in  movements  otherwise 
taking  place  without  His  special  notice. 

Now,  whether  or  not  we  suppose  this  notion  a 
new  truth  gained  by  our  intelligence,  when  it  comes 
into  the  simple  religion  existing  before  and  held 
forth  in  the  Hol^^  Scriptures,  its  effect  is  of  necessity 
very  great.  It  is  as  would  be  the  addition  to  our 
atmosphere  of  any  new  clement,  however  attenuated 
or  imperceptible  to  ordinary  sense,  in  interrupting 
the  solar  heat  and  light  upon  which  all  terrestrial 
life  depends.  This  new  element  of  the  soul's  atmo- 
sphere in  our  day  is  the  notion  of  *'  laws  of  Nature  " 
or  a  "reign  of  law."  It  is  such  an  interposing 
medium,  not  only  as  to  prayer,  but  as  to  all  faith  in 
things  spiritual;  as  to  quiet  confidence  in  God's  care 
and  merc}^,  notwithstanding  what  would  otherwise 
make  us  anxious  and  afraid  ;  as  to  gratitude  Avhen 
we  escape  dangers  or  receive  blessings ;  as  to  faith 
in  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  into  this 
world  to  save  mankind,  as  "  approved  by  signs  and 
wonders";  as  to  all  such  marvellous  things  related 
in  our  Holy  Book,  and  so  witnessing  that  it  is  God's 


SOME   CURIOUS   FACTS   AND   QUESTIONS 


Word ;  and  as  to  any  knowledge  of  God  and  all  the 
heavenly  things,  with  glory  and  joy  in  them  by  hope. 

Let  us  consider  well  that  this  effect  is  produced 
not  merely  upon  the  readers  of  scientific  books.  It 
flows  out  into  the  "light  reading"  of  the  many,  and 
into  the  atmosphere  of  general  opinion ;  and  it 
reaches  almost  every  man,  woman  and  child.  It 
thus  not  only  helps  to  deaden  the  spiritual  sensi- 
bility of  all,  but  also  creates  a  general  impression 
that  when  battle  is  joined  between  the  admired 
leaders  of  "  modern  thought  "  and  those  who  present 
themselves  as  champions  of  Christ's  religion,  these 
latter  do  not  get  the  best  of  it.  And  what  if  their 
failure  is  not  in  being  "  unscientific,"  but  in  trying  to 
be  scientific  ? 

Any  way,  this  mischief  is  immeasurable.  What 
advantage  gained  can  be  imagined  to  compensate 
this?  It  keeps  men  unhappy  in  spite  of  the  ver}^ 
grace  of  God.  It  tends  to  reduce  the  Christian 
lands  to  worse  than  heathenism — to  an  irreligion  in 
which  the  divine  and  spiritual  has  no  acknowledg- 
ment; which  would  be  a  frightful  degradation,  spite 
of  all  the  books,  and  arts  and  sciences  left.  Liter- 
ally it  casts  off  fear  of  the  good  God,  and  restrains 
prayer  to  Him,  It  defrauds  our  Lord  the  King  of 
Glory  of  His  salvation  of  mankind. 

Fellow-Christians,  would  it  not  be  good  if  we 
could  dismiss  from  all  belief  an  opinion  so  baleful  in 
result?  Even  if  you  are  so  constituted  or  so  envi- 
roned by  other  influences  that  you  are  not  affected 
by  it  in  that  fatal  way,  would  you  not  be  glad  for 


16    THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

the  sake  of  these  others,  if  it  could  be  given  up  with- 
out sacrifice  of  truth?  Well,  it  was  once  unknown. 
Many  generations  of  thoughtful  men  lived  and  died 
without  it,  and  this  includes  all  the  Apostolic  Chris- 
tians. Let  US  then  carefully  examine  its  claims  to 
belief. 

[The  just  force  of  this  argument  will  fail  to  reach 
my  reader's  mind  if  he  conceives  of  it  as  a  mere 
"  question  of  words."  For  instance,  if  he  assumes 
that  a  "reign  of  law^'  may  be  and  really  is  in  the 
effect  of  its  use  the  same  as  the  reign  of  God,  which 
all  Christians  in  terms  maintain.  I  must  therefore 
here  by  anticipation  give  warning  against  this  mis- 
take, and  state  briefly  about  this  what  I  shall  more 
fully  show  in  its  best  place,  later  in  this  enquiry. 
1st.  God  having  chosen,  or  rather  created  this  word 
law  to  tell  man  of  his  duty  and  obedience — if  we 
appropriate  it  to  some  other  use,  we  confuse  our 
apprehension  of  that  spiritual  truth  which  is  the 
knowledge  most  necessary  for  us  and  most  divinely 
certain. 

Beyond  question  it  is  more  important  for  each  of 
us  to  ha\^  a  strong  and  true  sense  of  law  as  what 
we  are  to  do  in  obeying  God,  than  as  to  what  passes 
around  us  in  the  world  of  matter  and  force.  Now 
the  first  (and  as  we  shall  yet  see  the  only  true)  sense 
of  that  word  implies  two  ivills,  one  commanding  and 
one  obeying.  Thus  one  who  has  that  right  to 
command  says,  "  Thou  shalt  love  (Me)  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart."  This  is  the  commanding 
will.     I  apprehend  this  and  love  Him.     That  is  the 


SOME   CURIOUS  FACTS  AND   QUESTIONS.  17 

obeying  will.  Or  I  disobey,  and  so  far  as  I  do  am. 
guilty.  Yet,  without  freedom  for  this  guilty  disobe- 
dience there  is  no  real  laic.  The  same  applies  to 
human  law,  and  therefore  and  because  all  such 
rightful  law  is  really  by  His  authority,  He  allows 
us  this,  and  only  this,  secondary  use  of  the  word  law. 
To  employ  it  in  the  account  of  mere  cause  and  effect 
in  things  which  have  no  will  or  choice,  is  a  figure  of 
speech  which,  as  long  as  it  is  understood  to  be  merely 
such  (as  is  such  use  of  it  in  Holy  Scripture),  is  good. 
But  when  it  becomes  "  philosophy,"  and  is  treated 
as  if  it  were  the  highest  literal  truth  to  which  we 
must  adjust  our  religious  thought,  it  will  only 
weaken  the  primary  and  necessary  force  of  the  term 
as  to  our  obedience  of  God. 

2d.  This  enquiry  is  not  useless  as  being  only  a 
*' question  of  words"  in  the  sense  that  a  "reign  of 
law  "  is  precisely  "  the  reign  of  God."  Man  is  dread- . 
fully  astray  for  all  his  real  life  and  destiny,  except 
as  our  Lord  in  His  Gospel  rescues  him.  This  de- 
pravity consists  in  separation  from  God,  and  aversion 
to  the  true  thought,  and  so  from  the  love  of  Him. 
Instead  of  this  glorious  life  of  love  in  which  his 
greatest  joy  is  that  God  talks  with  him,  when  now 
he  hears  His  voice  he  hides  himself  in  the  trees  of 
the  garden.  Even  after  he  is  by  Christ's  salvation 
set  in  the  right  way,  he  is  continually  tempted  from 
it  to  false  thoughts  of  God  as  well  as  to  false  ways 
of  willful  disobedience.  Once  and  everywhere  on 
the  earth  this  temptation  was  in  the  notion  of 
*«gods  many."  Now  and  in  Christendom  it  is  in 
words  which  pretend  religion  without  its  reality. 


18  THE   REIGN   OP   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

This  flatters  human  vanity,  by  persuading  us  that 
we  have  come  to  think  so  profoundly  and  vigorously 
that  we  have  got  beyond  the  common  idea  of  God  as 
a  person.  Sometimes  it  is  in  fancying  that  we  have 
discovered,  not  that  God  is  all,  but  that  All  is  God. 
As  one  aspect  of  the  Divine  is  greatness,  we  gratify 
the  pleasure  of  thought  about  this  by  contemplating 
the  vastness  of  creation,  and  then  persuade  ourselves 
that  this  is  adoring  the  Creator  —  that  the  total  ot 
what  God  has  made  is  God  ;  which  is  really  one  way 
of  saying  that  there  is  no  Creator  and  no  God. 

Or,  short  of  this  false  dogma,  we  may  give  our 
attention  only  to  this  "Nature,"  and  say  that  "the 
heavens  declare  its  (or  lief)  glory ";  and  by  such 
personifying  and  deifying  of  "Nature,"  refuse  to 
behold  the  only  living  and  true  Person.  Or  we  may 
make  a  like  false  use  of  any  abstraction  or  adjective, 
and  talk  only  of  "Mind,"  "Will,"  "the  True,"  "the 
Eight,"  "  the  Good,"  and  so  get  rid  of  real  religion. 
It  is  of  precisely  the  same  effect  to  attribute  power 
and  government  to  any  abstract  word,  as  to  say 
that  ^'  Law  "  reigns,  instead  of  that  God  reigns.  If 
we  mean  the  latter,  why  do  we  not  say  it  and  not 
the  other,  which  promotes  atheism  in  those  who 
are  inclined  that  way,  and  obscures  the  light  of 
this  glorious  truth  to  the  religious.  No,  it  is  not  an 
idle  question  of  words  which  is  involved  in  this 
proposition,  "  The  reign  op  God  not  the  reign  of 
law."  The  other  great  spiritual  consequences  which 
help  to  prove  the  truth  of  what  is  here  maintained, 
also  enhance  its  importance,  as  will  appear  later  in 
the  discussion.] 


THE  TWO   "reigns"  CONTRASTED.  19 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE    TWO    "reigns"    CONTRASTED. 

WE  are  making  this  enquiry  now  as  Christian 
believers.  (How  we  might  argue  about  it 
with  others  is  another  thing,  and  will  receive  brief 
notice  in  the  final  suggestions).  As  such,  we  know 
that  God  is  absolute,  eternal  and  almighty,  and  that 
of  His  will  only  He  made  all  else  that  exists,  to 
begin  that  existence.  We  can  suppose  of  the  Creator 
after  this  act  of  creation,  one  of  these  three  things : 
either  (1)  that  all  continuance  of  being  and .  all 
movement  is  the  actual  direct  power  of  God,  just  as 
was  the  creation  ;  or  (2)  that  with  the  creation  He 
gave  a  self-existence  to  what  He  had  made,  and 
established  a  force  or  forces,  as  a  man  adjusts  the 
spring  of  a  watch,  which  would  then  of  itself  work 
all  the  life  and  movement  we  see,  either  forever,  or 
for  any  time  He  limited.  We  may  then  declare  that 
these  movements  are  "laws  of  nature,"  as  imperative 
as  laws  of  moral  conduct  and  religion  given  to  men, 
and  even  more  fixed,  necessary  and  invariable.  But 
to  this  we  may  add  that  God  has  reserved  to  Himself 
the  power  to  suspend  or  act  contrary  to  these  laws 
at  rare  intervals,  by  miracles,  for  His  own  special 
purposes ;  or  (3)  we  may  say  that  we  know  only 
that  all  things  were  created  by  God  and  exist  accord- 
ing to  His  will,  but  that  He  has  told  us  no  more,  and 
it  would  be  presumptuous  folly  for  us  to  think  that 


20  THE   KEIGN  OP   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LA.W." 

we  could  by  any  "  searching  find  out  God"  in  so 
great  a  matter.  This  last  of  the  three  alternatives 
amounts  practically  to  the  first,  and  may  appear  in 
the  course  of  this  enquiry  to  involve  it  of  necessity. 

The  real  question  then  lies  between  the  first  and 
second.  As  the  latter  assumes  the  notion  of  the 
"reign  of  law,"  so  we  may  distinguish  the  idea  of 
the  former  as  the  reign  of  God.  As  has  been  already 
suggested,  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
that  this  involves  a  denial  of  that  usual  order  of 
events  upon  which  all  our  calculation  and  science  are 
based.  When  God  has  planted  in  my  soul  the  in- 
stinctive faith,  and  confirmed  it  with  His  own 
gracious  promise,  that  these  things  shall  follow  one 
another  in  the  order  I  observe  in  them  now,  (except 
upon  some  extraordinary  occasions  which  the  same 
gracious  love  will  find  for  doing  us  more  good  in 
another  way),  have  I  any  reason  for  distrusting  this 
because  He  does  each  of  these  things  in  person^  instead 
of  by  a  huge  machine  set  in  motion  6000  or  60,000 
years  ago,  or  because  I  do  not  (and  cannot)  suppose 
that  He  ever  manacled  His  most  blessed  and  glorious 
omnipotent  will  by  some  "laws  "  to  that  effect?  Is 
not  divine  love  and  truth  security  enough  for  man's 
calculations  ?  If  not,  what  *'  laws  "  or  forces  could 
ever  give  me  rational  confidence  ? 

This  idea  of  "  the  reign  of  God  "  has  no  difficulties 
for  faith,  either  as  regards  prayer  or  miracle.  That 
God  usually  sustains  all  things  and  does  me  good  in 
a  regular  succession  of  acts  which  I  can  calculate 
upon,  does  not   hinder  His   doing  any  other   thing 


THE  TWO  "reigns"   CONTRASTED.  31 

which  I  pray  for,  or  any  "  great  wonder  "  to  give 
witness  to  His  word.  Nor  does  it  impair  my  power 
to  believe  in  these  things,  or  to  expect  them  accord- 
ing to  His  promise.  His  giving  what  I  ask  may  fall 
within  this  regular  working  (whether  within  the 
view  of  ray  calculating  forethought  or  beyond  it),  or 
it  may  not.  The  one  is  as  easy  for  Him  as  the  other, 
and  as  possible  for  me  rationally  to  believe.  The 
only  thing  for  me  in  either  case,  is  to  be  pleased  and 
grateful  whatever  answer  He  makes  to  my  prayer. 
And  so  if  He  presents  a  miracle  to  my  faith,  I  can 
at  once  recognize  it  by  its  spiritual  as  well  as  its 
sensible  signs,  and  simply  believe. 

It  is  entirely  different  with  the  notion  of  a  "  reign 
of  law."  To  grant  my  prayer  or  perform  a  miracle > 
requires  then,  at  least  in  my  thought,  that  a  vast, 
immensely  complicated  mechanism  shall  be  deranged, 
or  that  even  this  mechanism  shall  be  immensely 
more  complicated  (which  is  the  favorite  device  of 
our  modern  writers  to  "  reconcile "  prayer  and 
miracle  with  mechanical  "  law  "  in  all  things).  In 
this  last  case  it  is  still  the  machine  working,  and  not 
God  graciously  willing.  The  true  spiritual  idea  of 
prayer,  or  of  the  immediate  power  of  God  in  a 
miracle,  is  thus  made  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible 
to  be  conceived.* 

It  is  true  that  those  who  speak  of ''  laws  of  nature  " 
do  not  agree  in  what  they  mean  by  the  term  ;  and 
some  of  them  say  that  they  do  not  mean  this  mechan- 

*I  shall  consider  later  and  at  length,  the  reply  which  may  be  made  to 
this,  that  as  all  events  and  actions  are  really  always  present  to  the 
Absolute  One,  it  is  as  easy  for  Him  to  arrange  His  "  laws  of  nature 
for  all  the  apparent  interferences,  as  without  them. 


22  THE  REIGN    OP   GOD   NOT   "THE    llEIGN   OF   LAW." 

ism.  But  we  must  deal  with  the  actual  notion  it 
conveys  to  most  people,  with  its  meaning  as  the 
pojDular  authors  wu'ite*  and  people  read,  and  with  the 
necessary  tendency  of  thought  in  the  words  used.  There 
is  such  a  tendency  in  this  use  of  "  law  "  which  no 
explanation  can  stay  and  no  warning  neutralize.  It 
is  a  most  remarkable  instance  of  how  some  "  words 
are  things."  It  makes  us  think  of  God  as  limited  in 
His  power  and  love. 

Upon  what  proof  then  is  this  "  reign  of  law  ^^ 
believed?  None  whatever.  It  is  a  mere  assumption. 
One  may  look  in  vain  in  the  writers  who  reason  upon 
it,  either  for  or  against  religious  faith,  for  any  such 
proof.f  They  say  "  it  is  plain,"  or  "  it  is  admitted," 
&c.  They  seem  to  suppose  that  no  thoughtful  person 
could  ever  think  otherwise.  Whereas,  some  of  the 
wisest  men  that  ever  lived  have  held  to  the  "  reign 
of  God "  in  incessant  immediate  power,  as  I  now 
maintain  it.  One  writer  says  that  this  true  and 
glorious  idea  would  "  deny  the  immutability  of  God," 
and  give  up  the  universe  to  chaotic  chance.J  Others 
say  that  it  is  treating  divine  will  as  "  capricious,"  and 
without  intelligence.  All  this  is  mere  begging  of  the 
question.  It  really  proceeds  from  a  wrong  notion, 
that  we  can  argue  and  decide  about  what  God  must 
do,  from  human  nature. 

♦For  example,  "  The  Keij^n  of  Law." 

+  What  comes  nearest  to  such  argument  will  be  examined  later.  The 
''Reign  of  Law,"  pp.  G3-f54,  appears  to  set  out  upon  the  proof,  but  soon 
abandons  it.  The  eloquent  rhapsodies  of  Hooker  and  JNIontesquieu  are 
not  reasoningB,  yet  they  are  fairly  examined  in  Chapter  IX. 

$This  astonishing  position  is  taken  by  one  of  the  writers  in  the 
Christ.  Ev.  Society's  series.  What  is  the  writer's  idea  of  "  immuta- 
bility"?   As  immovability,  or  mere  mechanism? 


THE   TWO   "reigns"   CONTRASTED.  23 

It  is  Strange  that  Christians  will  commit  this  folly, 
when  not  only  does  our  best  reason  expose  it,  but 
His  own  voice  speaking  from  heaven  says,  "  My 
ways  are  not  your  ways."  Even  unbelievers  some- 
times see  this  and  object  to  the  "  anthropomorphism  " 
of  Christians.*  From  this  proceed  also  two  other 
notions,  which  may  be  now  in  the  minds  of  my 
readers,  obstructing  their  correct  judgment  in  the 
argument  which  is  to  follow,  viz.  that  at  the  crea- 
tion, God  must  have  set  up  this  mechanical  "  reign  of 
law,"  first,  because  it  would  be  an  economy  of  force  ; 
and  secondly,  because  a  foreseeing  "  mind  "  would 
naturallj"  provide  for  its  plans  in  that  way.  We 
forget  that  this,  which  is  true  enough  of  our  poor 
little  forethought,  will  and  power,  has  no  sort  of 
application  to  one  with  whom  all  is  independence 
and  eternity.  For  since  He,  and  He  alone,  is  literally 
infinite^  without  bounds  in  any  direction,  His  power 
is  not  merely  inexhaustible,  but  is  not  lessened  by  any 
action  or  all  actions.  So  his  knowledge,  attention, 
and  love  (let  us  not  forget  that)  are  no  more  tasked 
(and  need  no  more  spare  themselves)  by  the  instant 
creation  of  all  things  in  each  successive  moment  of 
time,  than  they  were  six  thousand  years  ago,  nor  than 
if  they  were  allowed  sixty  thousand  j^ears  for  the 
process.  Language  indeed  fails  before  this  ineffable 
contemplation.  So  also  let  our  reasoning  keep  silence 
when  it  sets  out  to  say  Avhat  G-od  must  have  done. 

Therefore,  so  far  as  we  have  proceeded,  it  is  plain 
that  we  may  take  up  this  enquiry  unprejudiced  by 

*  See  Lewes'  Aristotle,  p.  80.     Fiske'a  Cosmical  Philos.  pp.  393,  423. 
Oil  that  they  were  as  wise  otherwise ! 


24  THE  KEIGN  OF   GOD   NOT   "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

any  presumption  in  favor  of  a  "reign  of  law." 
We  will  do  well  also  to  understand  that  what  I 
maintain  now  is  far  from  being  a  new  notion,  set 
against  the  belief  of  all  the  past.  There  have  been 
many  just  such  protests  in  substance,  against  the 
ideas  of  "  laws  of  nature"  and  their  "reign,"  made 
by  wise  and  devout  men  in  past  ages.  I  only  place 
here  some  sentences  from  the  noble  sermon  of  Henry 
Melville  upon  "  the  continual  agency  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son."* 

"  But  is  not  our  philosophy  as  defective  as  our 
theology,  so  long  as  we  thus  give  energy  to  matter 
and  make  a  deity  of  nature?  *  *  *  *  I  do  not 
believe  it  the  result  of  properties  which,  once  im- 
parted, operate  of  themselves,  that  vegetation  goes 
forward  and  verdure  mantles  the  earth.  I  rather 
believe  that  Deity  is  busy  with  every  seed  that  is  cast 
into  the  ground,  and  that  it  is  through  its  immediate 
agency  that  every  leaf  opens  and  every  flower  blooms. 
I  count  it  not  the  consequence  of  a  physical  organi- 
zation—  the  effect  of  a  curious  mechanism  which, 
once  set  in  motion,  continues  to  work  —  that  pulse 
succeeds  to  pulse  and  breath  follows  breath  :  I  rather 
regard  it  as  literally  true  that  in  God  'we  live  and 
move  and  have  our  being,'  that  each  pulse  is  but  the 
throb,  each  breath  the  inspiration  of  the  ever  present, 
all  actuating  Divinity.  Away  with  the  idolatry  of 
nature !  Nature  is  but  a  verbal  fiction  invented  to 
keep  out  of  sight  the  unwearied  acting  of  the  Great 
First  Cause." 

*  Melville'a  Sermons,  vol.  I,  p.  287 :  Philadelphia. 


IS  THIS  A  SCIENTIFIC   OR    A  RELIGIOUS    QUESTION?         25 

CHAPTER  III. 

.  IS   THIS   A   SCIENTIFIC   OR   A   RELIGIOUS    QUESTION  ? 

MY  fellow-Christiaiis,  Bome  who  disclaim  that 
title  say  that  we  Christians  do  not  love 
truth,  but  in  all  these  discussions  only  follow  our 
prejudices.  And  some  who  shave  the  honor  of  that 
name  with  us,  insist  that  we  cannot  be  honest  and 
candid  seekers  of  God's  truth  unless  we  concede 
certain  postulates  of  those  others.  These  postulates 
are  that  there  are  "  laws  of  nature";  and  that  we 
must  adjust  our  faith  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the 
miracles  related  by  them,  and  in  the  duties  and 
results  of  prayer  to  Grod,  to  this  "  reign  of  law," 
(z.  e.  in  effect  the  reign  of  such  "  laws "  as  our 
present  science  claims  to  have  proved)  or  give  up 
that  faith.  We  will  therefore  first  seek  the  truth 
about  this  claim,  and  find  out  whether  there  are 
any  such  laws  which  have  any  sort  of  relation  to 
our  faith. 

It  is  generally  agreed  among  Christian  believers, 
whether  scientific  or  not,  that  some  truth  is  religious 
and  some  natural ;  and  that  religion  does  not  teach 
the  latter,  nor  science  the  former.  Accepting  this 
as  substantially  true,*  in  which  of  these  divisions 
of  knowledge  shall  Ave  look  for  the  truth  about  the 

*  If  any  object  to  the  term  "  natural  "  thus  used,  they  are  welcome  to 
substitute  any  other  which  will  define  what  so  many  are  ready  enough 
to  insist  that  religion  has  no  business  with. 

3 


26  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW. 

supposed  "  reign  of  law  "  ?  —  in  other  words,  is  it  a 
scientific  or  a  religious  question?  Is  it  something 
about  God?  Is  it  something  about  what  He  willed 
and  did  before  there  was  a  man  to  observe  any  of 
His  works?  Undoubtedly  it  is.  Then  just  so  un- 
doubtedly it  is  a  question  of  religious  knowledge. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  suppose  it  be  suggested 
that  as  this  question  relates  to  what  we  know  by 
our  senses,  and  what  comes  under  our  observation 
and  reasonings,  it  therefore  belongs  also  (for  this  is 
the  utmost  that  could  be  claimed)  to  our  science. 
Even  this  is  disproved  by  reflection.  For  science, 
as  its  greatest  proficients  insist,  knows  nothing  of 
history  :*  that  is,  of  a  free  will,  if  there  be  such  a 
thing,  and  its  actions ;  of  what  any  person  (and 
surely  least  of  all,  what  the  Great  One)  has  done 
in  the  measureless  past.  It  knows  only  phenomena, 
things  actually  occurring  in  a  usual  order  since  men 
began  to  observe  them. 

God's  creation  of  all  things  from  nothing,  or  His 
making  any  fixed  regulation  for  existence  since,  or 
imposing  laws  upon  Himself  for  its  mode  of  con- 
tinuance, or  for  what  He  should  will  to  do  in  it  or 
with  it,  whatever  of  this  may  be  thought  true, 
is  alike  outside  of  the  scientific  knowledge. 

To  tell  about  a  "Book  of  ligature"  delivered  to 
men  by  God,  as  much  as  His  book  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  in  which,  as  well  as  in  that  Scripture,  He  informs 
them  of  Himself,  is  of  no  force  in  this  argument.    So 

*  Its  modern  votaries  are  iu  fact  attempting  history  in  their  geology, 
astronomy  and  studies  of  animal  and  vegetable  life;  but  this  is  their 
"unscientific"  folly. 


IS  THIS  A  SCIENTIFIC   OR  A  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  ?         27 

far  as  this  language  is  not  the  imagination  of  some 
good  men  to  express  in  a  lively  way  their  gratitude 
for  the  pleasure  such  studies  give  them,  and  as 
illustrating  how  a  soul  (if  already  devout)  will 
behold  His  power,  glory  and  love  in  all  His  wonderful 
works  of  ordinary  nature  —  the  notion  of  a  "Book  of 
Nature  "  teaching  us  all  about  God  as  His  real  Word 
does,  is  dangerous  nonsense.  In  many  lamentable 
instances,  the  most  scientific  of  men  have  studied  the 
"  Book  of  Nature  "  only  to  disobey  the  blessed  Gospel 
of  our  Lord,  and  even  become  atheists. 

By  what  reasoning  from  present  science  can  men 
know  how  God  made,  and  continues  this  incalculable 
multitude  of  existences  and  processes  which  we  call 
"  nature  "  ?  Allow  human  investigation  the  largest 
possible  present  achievement,  and  it  does  not  yet  know 
the  thousandth  part  of  the  facts  for  such  a  conclusion. 
And  if  it  had  all  the  facts,  it  is  most  probable  that 
human  intelligence  is  incapable  of  the  necessary 
generalization.  Let  me  calmly  reflect  upon  what  a 
single  "day  brings  forth":  upon  the  aniount  and 
variety  of  movement  on  this  earth  alone  between 
one  sunrise  and  another;  the  vast  total  of  visible 
life,  from  mosses  to  men  ;  the  amazing  multitude  of 
creatures  invisible  to  our  ordinary  sight;  the  flowing 
of  water-currents  and  tossings  of  oceans;  the  atmo- 
spheric movements —  vapors,  storms  and  currents; 
the  solar  and  planetary  influences  upon  our  globe  ; 
and  all  this  penetrated  and  affected  by  the  free  wills 
of  a  thousand  millions  of  men.  Consider  how  all 
these  act  upon  one  another  in  countless  and  incessant 


28  THE   KEIGN  OF   GOD   NOT  "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

variations.  Multiply  this  by  the  days  of  a  year 
then  by  all  the  ages  since  creation.  Add  to  this 
what  we  may  conjecture  of  the  immense  space  in  which 
our  earth  is  so  little,  and  of  the  multitude  of  "  worlds  " 
which  move  in  it.  Augment  the  calculation  by  such 
a  glance  over  the  eternal  future  as  the  Eternal  One 
must  have  ever  before  Him. 

No  less  a  collection  of  facts  than  all  this  must 
human  science  have  before  it,  to  establish  as  one  of 
its  true  conclusions,  that  God  in  the  creation  set  up 
a  "  reign  of  law."  Even  then  it  is  not  wise  to  believe 
that  one  of  us  creatures,  were  he  the  "  wisest  and 
brightest,"  or  all  of  us  together,  could  comprehend 
these  particulars  in  one  consistent  view,  and  demon- 
strate "  the  knowledge  of  God's  ways,"  as  by  "laws 
of  nature  "  instead  of  His  incessant  and  immediate 
will.  Indeed,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  such  demonstration 
has  been  attempted. 

It  is  always  assumed  as  something  already  proved, 
or  self-evident;  and  as  so  admitted  by  all  men  as  a 
matter  of  course.  It  is  not,  that  I  am  aware  of, 
stated  as  self-evident.  For  that,  it  must  needs  be  one 
of  those  propositions  which,  when  put  in  words, 
everyone  agrees  to  at  once:  as  that  the  whole  of 
aii^'thing  is  greater  than  any  part  of  it.  On  the 
contrary,  this  notion  of  the  "  reign  of  law "  when 
presented  to  my  mind  (and  many  others)  is  evidently 
false.  If  it  is  said  to  be  already  proved  to  better 
informed  men,  whose  discoveries  I  ought  to  accept, 
I  can  onl}'-  do  this  reasonably  upon  such  scrutiny  of 
their  proof  as  I  now  attempt.    The  argument  already 


IS  THIS  A   SCIENTIEIC   OR  A  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION?         29 

pursued  hardly  leaves  room  to  think  that  an}^  such 
proof  is  possible,  short  of  direct  information  from 
the  Eternal  Creator  Himself. 

Every  just  reflection  then  remits  this  question 
to  the  province  of  religion  —  to  what  God  has 
chosen  to  tell  mankind  in  words  of  Himself,  as  well 
as  of  their  relations  to  Him.  If  it  be  true  that 
He  in  creation  set  up  certain  natural  forces  to 
continue  automatically  until  He  removed  them, 
or  bound  Himself  by  certain  "laws"  to  carry  on  all 
this  life  and  movement  in  an  invariable  way,  then 
this  is  a  truth  of  religion,  and  not  of  science.  It  is 
to  be  examined  and  proved  as  other  religious  truth 
is.  Then,  if  so  established,  science  may,  within  its 
domain,  ascertain  for  us  specially  what  those  laws 
are;  and  we  may  decide  upon  the  proof  of  these  in 
detail,  and  as  to  how  they  relate  to  our  religious 
faith. 

This  is  a  ver}''  weighty  conclusion  and  draws  great 
consequences  with  it.  Let  us  study  it  from  every 
point  of  view  to  make  sure  of  the  truth,  and  to  give 
that  truth  all  the  clearness  and  force  possible.  The 
first  thing  is  to  decline  asswning  such  '*  laws  of 
nature"  and  their  "reign,"  because  all  the  great 
writers  of  our  time  do.  It  is  proof  which  we  want 
and  must  have.  Have  mankind  "  by  searching 
found  out  God"  in  this  respect?  If  some  one 
asserts  that  He  has  so  made  man  and  the  cosmos 
around  him,  that  he  may  (and  with  the  purpose 
that  he  should)  discover  such  "laws,"  let  them 
prove  that.     Is  it  so  proved  from  God's  own  Word  ? 


30    THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  affirms  that.  On  the 
contrary,  ^\o  shall  see  in  Chapters  VI.  and  YII. 
that  not  a  trace  of  it  is  found  in  Holy  Scripture, 
but  the  opposite  in  the  precise  words  of  many 
passages,  and  in  thousands  of  others  by  most  plain 
implication. 

Or  is  it  claimed  upon  the  theory  so  often  rashly 
insisted  upon  in  the  details  of  science,  that  a  theory 
to  which  all  facts  so  far  discovered  agree,  is  itself  a 
demonstrated  fact  ?  Surely  no  one  who  will  ponder 
the  vastness  of  such  an  inference  in  this  case,  com- 
pared with  the  immeasurable  littleness  in  proportion 
of  our  accumulated  facts,  (or  what  we  think  so  now,) 
can  at  once  be  sure  of  that.  Indeed,  all  these  facts 
really  agree  at  least  as  well  with  the  idea  of  the 
immediate  will  and  power  of  G-od.  Especially  con- 
sidering the  rash  vanity  of  the  human  mind,  which 
is  such  an  infirmity  in  confusing  its  perceptions  even 
of  far  inferior  truth,  shall  we  not  take  time  to  see 
whether  this  notion  of  "  law  in  nature,"  etc.,  may 
not  be  rather  some  of  that  false  "  wisdom  by  which 
the  world  knew  not  God,"  than  something  which  He 
is  teaching  us  in  His  works? 

Again  :  there  is  a  question  of  what  God  did  '*  in 
the  beginning," — of  how  He  did  it.  From  whom  can 
we  have  knowledge  about  this  ?  Surel}^  from  none 
but  Himself  There  was  no  human  witness.  If 
there  could  have  been,  he  could  not  have  compre- 
hended what  he  saw.  God  has  indeed  given  to  man 
some  verbal  account  of  this  creation  ;  but  He  has 
7iot  added  to  this  the  suggestion  that  His  creature 


IS  THIS  A  SCIENTIFIC  OR  A  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION?         31 


could  only  understand  this  thirty  centuries  after- 
ward by  scientific  studies  of  the  existing  order  of 
nature,  and  even  add  to  it  the  greater  fact  which  He 
did  not  directly  reveal,  of  a  "  reign  of  law."  He 
has  said  no  such  thing  in  all  his  later  written  Word, 
even  by  sayings  upon  earth  of  Him  who  is  in  person 
the  Word  of  God,  and  when  it  was  perfected  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  this  He  has  said  :  "  Canst 
thou  by  searching  find  out  God  ?  .  .  .  Who  is  this 
that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  without  know- 
ledire?  .  .  .  Where  wast  thou  when  I  laid  the  foun- 
dations  of  the  earth?  declare  if  thou  hast  under- 
standing ?  .  .  .  Knowest  thou  it  because  thou  wast 
then  born,  or  because  the  number  of  thy  days  is 
great?"  (Job  xi.  7;  xxxviii.  2,  4,  21.)  And  if  we 
have  ventured  to  make  positive  assertions  about  such 
things  from  what  we  have  observed  or  conjectured, 
our  best  reason  responds  in  the  penitent  confession 
of  that  man  of  great  thought,  the  patriarch  Job : 
"Who  is  he  that  hideth  counsel  without  knowledge? 
Therefore  have  I  uttered  that  I  understood  not: 
things  too  wonderful  for  me  which  I  knew  not." 
(xlii.  3.)  It  is  but  sober  reason  for  us  to  conclude 
that  we  can  no  more  discover  the  method  of  the 
innumerable  and  immeasurable  works  of  God,  by 
tracing  backwards  out  of  its  millions  of  processes 
some  few  which  we  seem  to  understand,  than  we 
could  have  comprehended  and  stated  it  at  the  be- 
ginning, if  eye-witnesses  then. 

Or  suppose  the    thoughtful  Christian  to    try  the 
question  by  the  following  method.     We  may  proceed 


33  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OP   LAW." 

in  either  of  those  two  directions,  viz.  1st.  What  is 
knowledge  in  religion  ?  and  is  this  a  question  of  that 
knowledge?  Or,  2d.  What  is  science?  and  is  this 
a  question  of  that  kind  ?  Either  one  of  these  investi- 
gations should  be  a  true  test;  and  each  must  surely 
give  the  same  result,  for  all  truth  is  consistent  with 
itself.     We  try  them  both  in  turn, 

1.  Religious  truth  certainly,  at  the  least,  includes 
all  we  know  or  can  know  about  God.  Therefore 
the  proposition  that  God  at  creation  set  up  an  inva- 
riable sj^stem  of  law  for  all  matter  and  life,  which 
continues  unbroken,  unless  in  some  very  rare  excep- 
tions ;  or  that  He  infused  into  this  material  creation 
a  force  or  forces  which  were  to  remain  in  it  and 
constitute  its  existence  and  motion  afterwards — or 
that  He  bound  Himself  by  such  "  laws  of  nature  " — 
this  in  either  of  its  forms  is  a  statement  about  God, 
of  what  He  did  or  does.  Therefore,  if  true,  it  is  a 
truth  of  religion.  Is  there  any  escape  from  this 
conclusion?     I  see  none. 

Or,  2dly,  What  is  science  as  distinguished  from 
religion  ?  That  is,  what  is  its  province?  its  field  of 
investigation?  its  possible  achievement?  Certainly 
the  facts  of  the  "cosmos  "  around  us — intellectual  as 
well  as  material,  if  you  please — but  only  that :  the 
succession  and  (apparently  and  ordinarily)  invariable 
connection  of  its  events,  whether  you  call  them 
causes  and  effects,  forces  and  motions,  or  life,  or 
even  "laws  of  nature."  But  whether  there  was 
something  else  before  this  present  order  of*'  nature  " 
began,  or  how  or  when  it  began,  (that  is,  creation) 


IS  THIS   A    SCIENTIFIC   OR   A   RELIGIOUS  QUESTION?         33 

is  entirely  beyond  the  range  of  science.  It  knows 
nothing  before  that  order — nothing  beyond  it.* 

The  same  man  may  indeed  see  God  and  His  will 
by  religion,  and  also  learn  about  "  nature  "  by 
science.  He  may  connect  the  two  in  his  thoughts, 
and  illuminate  the  science  by  the  religion.  But 
none  the  less  all  this  knowledge  of  God,  including 
that  of  creation  and  of  Divine  power  in  existence 
and  life,  came  to  him  in  the  way  of  religion  and  not 
of  science. 

Follow  any  scientific  investigation  to  the  farthest 
conclusions  and  widest  generalization,  and  what 
do  we  come  to  at  last  ?  A  true  vision  of  God  at 
creation,  arranging  a  mechanism  or  limiting  His 
own  will  for  the  future  ?  Do  we  then  hear  a  divine 
voice  telling  this,  or  find  an  inscription  recording 
it?  No,  we  have  our  chain  of  successive  facts,  and 
nothing  more. 

If  indeed  there  were  no  revelation  from  God 
about  creation,  we  might  venture  beyond  real  scien- 
tific research  into  some  conjectures  from  it  as  to  the 
beginning.  But  wiiat  presumption  it  would  be  to 
compare  them  in  importance  or  certainty  to  such  a 
revelation,  or  to  adjust  its  meaning  to  them  ! 

Suppose  that  we  here  venture  upon  some  such 
speculation,  taking  the  fact  (as  now  believed  by  us 

*It  really  knows  nothing  of  that  order  as  existing  before  its  observa- 
tions begin,  certainly  not  before  the  histories  and  traditions  of  men. 
It  may  Yearn  of  this  preceding  period  from  a  Word  of  God,  or  may 
conjecture  it  in  details,  by  reasoning  that  the  first  known  facts  being 
the  results  of  processes  now  in  action,  it  can  trace  them  backwards  for 
vast  periods  of  our  time,  and  really  indefinitely.  But  this  is  at  the 
utmost  conjecture.  It  will  be  fully  discussed  later  in  observations  upon 
the  relation  of  such  theories  to  the  Word  of  God.     See  Chaps.  V.  and  X. 


34  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

all)  of  universal  gravitation  of  matter.  Let  us 
pursue  its  instances  everywhere  in  one  direction  to 
the  parts  of  microscopic  insects — the  motes  floating 
in  our  air,  and  the  most  attenuated  element  of  that 
air ;  in  the  other,  to  all  the  vast  uncounted  spheres- 
that  move  in  the  yet  immeasurably  vaster  space 
into  which  our.  great  telescopes  pierce.  Suppose 
that  we  compare  this  with  heat,  electricity,  chemical 
affinity  and  all  other  imagined  forces  ;  that  with  the^ 
most  grand  conjecture  we  reduce  them  all  to  one  by 
correlation,  and  presume  the  conservation  of  this  in 
a  total  that  never  varies,  however  much  it  appears 
in  changing  proportions  of  these  forms.  V7hat 
then  ? 

We  have  now  really  gone  somewhat  beyond  fact 
and  knowledge  into  the  region  of  imagination.  But 
suppose  this  brilliant  guess  to  be  yet  turned  into  as 
much  demonstration  as  is  now  allowed  by  all  to  the 
"law  of  gravitation."  What  then?'  We  have 
ascertained  one  force  which  represents  all  motion  : 
that  is,  we  have  one  word  for  it,  and  that  is  all.  For 
what  is  this  force  ?  Is  it  a  living  thing  which  moves- 
of  itself?  Then  it  is  a  person  and  a  will.  And  with 
all  this  omnipresence  and  omnipotence  it  is  a  god  ^  or 
rather,  we  who  know  the  true  religion,  must  say  the 
One  and  Only  God.  And  as  we  know  Him  to  be  the- 
Spirit  w^ho  is  love  and  truth,  we  see  that  the  one 
force  is  Himself,  working  incessantly  and  immediately 
by  His  mere  will.  (This  is  indeed  not  an  argument 
for  those  who  say  that  they  do  not  know  the  being 
of  that  Person,  unless  and  except   so   far  as  it   is 


IS  THIS   A   SCIENTIFIC   OR  A   RELIGIOUS  QUESTION?         35 

proved  from  "  nature."  Unfortunately,  it  is  the 
fashion  of  all  philosophic  writing  now  to  allow  this 
primary  atheism.  Whereas,  the  true  reason  of  man 
is  to  recognize  the  personal  being  of  the  Eternal 
One  as  the  first  and  necessary /ac^  in  our  knowledge.) 
Let  us  agree  then,  that  if  and  when  science  gets 
to  the  fact  of  the  one  force ^  its  own  force  is  exhausted, 
and  it  has  only  again  come  in  sight  of  the  essential 
truth  with  which  all  knowledge  begins.  Then,  if  it 
will  be  rational,  it  cannot  expect  religion  to  learn 
anything  from  it,  but  can  only  be  the  humble  pupil 
and  servant  of  religion.  It  can  no  more  answer  the 
religious  question  now  before  us,  in  asserting  that 
the  force  of  nature  is  some  mechanism  created  and 
set  in  motion  before  any  history  or  observation  of 
man — that  is,  previous  to  the  very  fixed  order  which 
it  explores — than  it  can  reveal  what  existed  a  thou- 
sand centuries  before  that. 


36  THE  KEIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LA.W. 

CHAPTER   ly. 

8H0ULD    IT    BE    TRIED    BY    "NATURAL    THEOLOGY"? 

WHAT  then  is  the  true  method  of  investigating 
this  religious  question  ?  Our  later  Christian 
writers  (all  of  them,  I  think)  assume  that  the  first  pro- 
cess of  religious  inquiry  is  by  what  they  call  "  natural 
theology."  This  assumption  is  as  irresponsible  as  it 
is  universal.  It  is  not  noticed  in  the  ancient  creeds 
of  the  Church  ;  not,  that  I  am  aware  of,  recognized  in 
any  confessions  of  faith,  articles  of  religion,  or  other 
symbols  of  the  main  divisions  of  our  later  Christen- 
dom. It  stands  merely  by  the  authority  of  certain 
great  names  among  the  writers  of  the  last  three 
centuries,*  and  is  properly  subject  to  the  same  free 
examination  as  all  other  matters  of  opinion.  If  true, 
it  will  be  the  stronger  and  more  useful  for  the 
scrutiny  ;  if  false,  it  is  not  a  harmless  or  unimportant 
error  in  regard  to  our  present  inquiry. 

Let  one  of  these  later  writersf  represent  them  all 
in  substance.  In  arguing  against  "  modern  doubt," 
he  labors  with  some  obscurity  and  not  a  few  self- 
contradictions,  to  show  that  there  is  something  called 
'' philosophy "  or  "natural  theology,"  from  which 
every  human    soul   first   gets    religious   knowledge. 

*Thi8  is  the  simple  fact  as  to  our  English  people.  Of  course  I  am 
aware  that  the  phrase  and  something  meant  by  it  may  be  found  in  Chris- 
tian literature  for  ages  before  that,  and  was  a  part  of  the  technical  the- 
ology of  the  "  schoolmen." 

+"  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,"  by  Dr.  Theodore  Christlieb, 
p.  128  and  passim. 


SHOULD  IT   BE   TKIED   BY   "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        37 

Then  be  says  that  "  revelation  merely  steps  in  to  its 
aid,  setting  up,  as  it  were,  landmarks  for  necessary 
guidance  in  the  region  of  moral  and  religious 
thoughts,  etc." 

According  to  this  then,  we  ought  now  first  to  apply 
to  "natural  theology,"  to  find  whether  the  "  reign  of 
law "  is  a  true  "  religious  thought."  After  that, 
''revelation  may  merely  step  in  to  its  aid,"  to  make 
its  truth  or  falsity  the  plainer.  But  there  lies  before 
us  an  earlier  question  yet,  and  that  is,  as  to  the  truth 
of  this  whole  idea  of.  natural  theology. 

That  idea  is,  that  each  soul  of  us  begins  to  know 
God  by  reasoning  from  what  we  perceive  of  our  own 
thoughts  and  of  "nature"  around  us.  Every  man, 
woman  or  child  is  supposed  at  some  time  to  reason 
thus  :  "There  is  a  cause  of  everything;  there  is  one 
cause  of  all — this  is  a  person  whom  we  know  of  by 
the  name  of  God,  and  judge  His  general  character  to 
be  according  to  the  Christian  idea."  So  it  follows 
that  only  after  this  "natural  theology"  is  received 
into  our  minds,  can  we  learn  something  more  of  Him 
by  His  direct  "revelation"  to  us,  and  what  we  are 
to  Him  and  are  to  do  toward  Him.  The  general 
opinion  of  these  Christian  writers  seems  to  be  that 
but  for  man's  fall  from  original  innocence,  this 
"natural  theology"  would  have  been  religious  know- 
ledge enough  for  him  without  any  "  Word  of  God." 
So,  to  strengthen  or  restore  Christian  faith  in  any 
soul,  (why  not  to  teach  it  to  one  who  had  never 
heard  of  it  before  ?)  ;  to  prove  any  truth  of  religion, 
the  process  must  always  be  in  this  order,  first 
"  natural  theology,"  then  "  revelation." 
4 


38  THE   llEIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

Bat  is  il  a  fact  that  you  or  I,  or  any  one  else,  so 
far  as  we  know,  begins  first  to  think  of  God  after 
such  reasonings  as  those  ?  Can  we  remember  when 
we  had  no  idea  of  Him,  and  got  it  afterwards  by 
that  process?  Certainly  not.  Memory  running 
back  furthest  into  childhood  can  find  no  such  atheis- 
tic blank.  Little  children  may  be  very  religious.* 
It  matters  not  for  this  purpose  whether  we  suppose 
the  idea  of  God  to  be  ^'  innate  "  with  the  child,  or  to 
be  always  communicated  to  him  by  his  elders  before 
he  can  remember.  There  it  is,  before  thought  about 
^'  conscience  "  or  anything  else  metaphysical.  In  the 
latter  alternative  it  has  passed  down  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another,  from  the  very  first,  and  found  each 
successive  soul  ready  to  receive  it  without  question 
or  reluctance,  as  if  made  for  such  belief.  This  at 
least  is  "  innate  "  (inborn) — the  adjustment  of  man's 
mind  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  The  latter  is  as 
evidently  suited  and  needful  to  the  former  as  light 
to  the  eye.f 

If  we  had  no  actual  information  about  this,  we 
might  indeed  make  the  fanciful  conjecture  that  the 
first  man  came  to  know  God  by  abstruse  reasoning. 

*Iu  eap;er  controversies  over  this  sentence  in  other  aspects,  we  do  not 
observe  how  the  Word  of  God  said  this  in  person,  "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."— St.  Matt,  sviii. 

t  To  those  who  have  read  that  curious  and  in  many  ways  interesting 
book,  "The  Grammar  of  Assent,"  it  would  be  well  worth  while  to  ex- 
amine how  and  why  the  writer  substitutes  for  terms  of  immemorial 
usage  and  all  just  authority,  such  as  belief,  faith  and  knoivleclge  of 
truth  or  of  God,  that  of  "  assent."  Without  "following  his  ingenious 
discussions,  how  much  better  is  the  simple  truth,  that  as  God  made 
man  specially  to  know  and  love  Him,  so  He  made  that  capacity  more 
immediate  and  certain  than  any  other,  even  than  the  consciousness  of  our 
own  thoughts.  It  is  not  He  who  said,  "know  thyself";  but  it  is  He 
who  says  that  He  "hath  given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  knoxo 
Him  that  is  true.'' 


SHOULD  IT  BE  TRIED  BY   "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        39 

But  we  have  the  actual  history,  and  that  tells  us  how 
the  great  Creator  at  once  made  Himself  known  in 
person  to  that  creature  whom  he  had  "  made  in  His 
own  image."  Let  any  thoughtful  Christian  read 
over  this  history  in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis,  and  then  try  to  adjust  it  to  the  theory  of 
"natural  religion,"  and  he  will  find  that  theory 
casting  over  the  whole  account  the  same  air  of 
mythical  unreality  as  the  like  treatment  does  to 
other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture. 

On  the  other  hand,  while  we  might  never  have 
discovered  this  great  fact  by  our  own  studies,  it 
commends  itself  to  our  reason  as  soon  as  known  and 
reflected  upon.  The  Glorious  One  having  among 
other  creatures  on  this  earth  made  one  sort  of  living 
beings  who  were  to  be  distinguished  among  them  all 
as  most  like  the  divine,  made  it  the  main  purpose 
of  their  life  to  know  and  love  Him.  He  might 
have  made  the  beginning  of  this  great  knowledge 
and  divine  aff'ection  to  come  only  after  a  long  and 
slow  process  of  thought  and  many  rolling  years  of 
life.  But  how  plain  it  is  that  the  simplest,  natural 
and  noble  way  would  be  to  tell  this  man  at  the  first: 
"lam  God:  know  me  with  all  thy  mind :  love  me 
with  all  thy  heart."  Why  was  this  harder  for  Him 
to  do  then,  or  for  us  to  believe  now,  than  the  other 
opinion  ?  In  no  way,  if  we  really  believe  in  the 
Almight}^  God.  But  this  rational  faith  does  become 
difficult  if  our  minds  are  obscured  by  the  notion  that 
He  is  under  some  "  reign  of  law." 

But  the  question  remains,  whether  mankind  having 


40  THE   KEIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

the  first  and  purest  knowledge  of  God  by  his  direct 
Word  and  not  by  any  *'  natural  theology,"  they  need 
resort  to  the  latter  for  further  religious  information? 
It  will  be  observed  first,  that  to  maintain  this  is  to 
reverse  the  account  of  natural  theology  as  given  by 
its  adherents.  That  supposes  it  to  come  first,  when 
"  revelation  merely  steps  in  to  its  aid,"  &c.  And 
here  1  would  guard  against  a  possible  misapprehen- 
sion arising  from  the  popular  use  of  terms,  by  which 
"  Word  of  God  "  means  always  and  only  the  book  of 
Holy  Scripture.  Whereas  it  properly  includes  all 
that  God  says  in  direct  address  to  mankind  by  words, 
as  distinguished  from  what  He  may  be  said  to  tell 
us  by  what  His  works  and  providence  suggest  to 
our  thoughts.  Its  primarj^  and  literal  meaning  is 
speech,  rather  than  writing.  The  latter  is  a  later 
means  of  securing  the  former  from  loss  or  change, 
and  providing  that  it  may  reach  the  increasing 
multitude  of  men.  Doubtless  the  "  Word  of  the 
Lord  "  often  came  to  prophets  in  the  first  ages  upon 
occasions  when  it  was  not  afterwards  written  down, 
and  thus  every  means  by  which  any  such  revela- 
tion is  preserved  and  repeated  to  men  is,  in  a  just 
sense,  "  the  Word  of  God  ";  notablj'  that  society  of 
men  set  up  and  continued  in  the  world,  expressly 
(among  other  purposes)  to  proclaim  that  truth. 

iieturning  then  to  the  question  whether  there  be 
any  such  demonstrated  truth  or  method  of  research 
as  is  commonly  called  "  natural  theology/'  by  which 
we  can  try  questions  of  religion,  and  specially  the 
one  before  us,  I  admit  that  it  has  in  its  favor  the 


SHOULD   IT   BE   TRIED   BY   "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        41 

weight  of  some  of  the  greatest  names.  Indeed,  it 
has  come  about  that  no  one  as  much  as  thinks  of 
proving  that  it  is  true,  useful  and  even  indispensable 
in  religious  discussion,  but  takes  all  that  for  granted. 
Our  examination  of  it  so  far  is  a  powerful  suggestion, 
if  not  demonstration,  that  this  is  a  mistake.  If  so, 
it  is  a  great  mistake,  misleading  men  in  their  search 
of  the  highest  and  most  necessary  truth. 

Let  us  examine  "natural  theology"  in  another 
aspect,  as  it  is  brought  forward  by  some  of  our  day 
in  a  new  and  dangerous  shape,  under  the  term 
"Comparative  Eeligion."  This  method  is  to  select 
from  all  religions  now  maintained  among  mankind 
(or  that  ever  have  been)  certain  true  principles  in 
which  they  agree,  and  to  discard  all  their  points  of 
difference  as  erroneous.  Is  this  the  way  in  which 
God  has  made  men  to  know  the  truth  about  Himself 
and  their  duties?  Quite  opposed  to  it,  and  allowing 
of  no  reconciliation,  is  the  idea  that  G-od  has  informed 
mankind  of  these  things  by  "  Word." 

We  all  agree  that  the  present  generation  of  men, 
and  many  generations  before  them,  are  far  from  all 
having  the  true  knowledge  of  God.  Their  very 
differences  prove  that  some,  even  vast  multitudes, 
must  be  very  far  from  the  true  religion.  How  came 
this  to  be  so?  And  what  is  the  remedy?  Those 
who  contend  for  the  method  of  "  natural  theology  " 
—  as  well  such  of  them  as  admit  a  "  Word  of  God" 
to  the  first  man,  as  the  others  —  point  to  what  is 
true  in  all  the  false  religions,  as  a  proof  that  men 
can  attain  to  some  religious  truth  by  their  own 
thoughts. 


42  THE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

But  to  them  (and  to  those  who  will  not  allow 
that  there  was  ever  a  "  revelation  "  in  words,  as  a 
deeper  conjecture  than  any  of  theirs,  of  how  all  men 
have  come  by  their  notions  of  religion)  I  propound 
this  question  :  What  became  afterwards  of  that  true 
knowledge  which  the  first  man  had?  We  find 
religions  everywhere,  in  all  regions  and  races  and 
ages  of  men.  These  religions  are  various  and  even 
contradictory ;  but  they  are  religions.  Whence, 
then,  came  the  true  religious  idea  of  an  unseen 
power  above  men,  which  must  be  worshipped?  If 
we  believe  that  men  had  at  first  some  sort  of 
information  of  this  truth  directly  from  God  Himself, 
we  cannot  answer  the  question  in  the  same  way  as 
if  we  suppose  it  to  have  come  to  them  only  by  their 
own  thoughts. 

Can  we  think  that  the  first  knowledge  utterly 
perished  from  later  generations?  In  at  least  one 
family  and  small  nation,  it  survived  in  some  purity, 
was  re-inforced  by  other  Divine  messages  through 
prophets,  and  at  last  merged  into  greater  and  perfect 
good  tidings  from  heaven.  But  had  that  first 
knowledge  of  Grod  given  to  the  first  man,  utterly 
ceased  for  the  heathen  tribes  and  great  nations? 
Even  for  any  man,  woman  or  child  of  them  all? 

We  cannot  rationally  think  so.  It  is  not  fanciful, 
but  most  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  any  great  idea 
of  truth  like  this,  once  getting  abroad  among  men, 
will  never  perish  from  among  them.  It  may  be 
mingled  by  them  with  false  notions,  so  as  to  dis- 
appear to  ordinary  notice  in  the  compound.     But  it 


SHOULD  IT  BE  TRIED   BY  "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        43 

will  still  remain  in  the  thoughts  of  men,  and  work 
powerfully  in  all  their  history;  it  may  enter  into 
new  combinations  of  influence  a  thousand  times,  but 
will  never  perish. 

It  is  one  of  the  noblest  conjectures  of  modern 
science  that  no  force  is  ever  lost :  that  when  it 
seems  so,  it  has  only  passed  into  another  form  in 
other  conditions.  Is  not  this  even  more  probable  of 
a  great  thought  once  in  the  minds  of  men  ?  Is  it 
not  of  itself  all  but  certain  of  a  thought  commu- 
nicated to  the  first  progenitors  of  mankind  by  God 
Himself  and  about  Himself?  —  and  so  proceeding 
from  that  beginning  of  the  race  to  every  soul  of 
them  all  in  all  their  generations  ?  Is  there  any 
place  left  for  doubt,  when  that  truth  is  involved  in 
"  the  first  and  great  commandment "  of  human  life, 
its  chief  principle  and  object  of  being.* 

Otherwise,  what  afterwards  became  of  this 
thought?  Did  it  after  a  while  vanish  into  non- 
entity? Here  were  the  first  of  mankind  (even  ten 
pairs  instead  of  one,  if  any  insist  upon  making  an 
allegory  in  that  point  of  the  story  of  Eden):  G-od 
having  made  them  and  all  else,  talks  with  them. 
Here  is  personal  knowledge  of  Him,  not  only  that 
He  is,  but  in  some  measure  what  He  is.  When  their 
children  were  born  and  grew  up,  this  knowledge 
passed  to  them  in  the  practice  of  worship,  in  conver- 
sation, and  in  the  thousand  incidents  upon  which 
religious  thought  will  affect  the  business  of  ordinary 
life.      This  must  be  so  even   supposing   there  was 

*  Raison  d'etre. 


44  THE   KEIGN    OF   GOD   NOT   "THE    REIGN   OF   LAW." 

nothing  supei-njitural  to  reveal  God  anew.  But 
certainly  to  these  souls  in  which  the  thought  of 
Him  already  lay,  "the  heavens,"  and  others  of  His 
wonderful  works,  "declared  the  glory  of  God." 

We  will  not  now  trace  this  knowledge  down  the 
generations  which  preserved  the  original  religion  in 
practice,  but  rather  those  which  passed  into  idolatry. 
Had  the  first  revelation  then  utterly  vanished  with 
these,  so  that  they  began  all  thought  of  religion 
anew,  with  reflections  upon  their  "consciousness" 
and  "  causation  "  ?  Both  reason  and  experience  are 
against  this  notion.  Who  has  ever  had  a  great  idea 
annihilated  in  his  mind?  What  instance  of  it  is 
there  in  history  ?  By  what  process  or  progress 
could  this  greatest  of  conceptions  cease  to  exist  in 
any  society  of  men  ? 

A  change  to  false  religion  after  mankind  lost 
original  innocence  is  quite  supposable  and  really 
probable.  The  son  of  one  who,  like  one  of  us, 
though  beset  by  evil  desire,  is  still  a  pious  wor- 
shipper, becomes  worldly  and  vicious.  He  changes 
his  religion  somewhat  to  agree  more  with  his  evil 
heart.  His  descendants  follow  the  same  downward 
process.  At  last  we  have  a  nation  of  idolaters,  with 
an  elaborate  system  of  false  worship,  and  successive 
generations  born  and  growing  up  with  no  idea  of 
any  other  religion  than  this. 

Yet  all  the  while  the  original  revelation  of  God 
survives  in  the  very  idea  of  any  religion  ;  of  some 
being,  power  and  person  (or  persons)  above  man  ;  of 
this  Divine  law  and  will   being  contrary  to   man's 


SHOULD   IT  BE   TRIED  BY   "NATURAL   THEOLOGY"?        45 

corrupt  self-will.  So  that  the  traces  of  truth  in  all 
false  religions,  so  far  from  being  a  proof  of  a  "natural 
theology"  which  invents  the  conception  of  God  from 
our  own  thoughts,  and  then  by  degrees  rises  from  a 
non-religious  conscience  to  the  thought  of  Him  as 
hol}^  and  gracious,  are  only  another  tribute  to  the 
Word  of  God  as  the  first  and  only  authority  in  all 
these  questions. 

But  the  theory  of  "Natural  Eeligion  "  is  some- 
times argued  from  Holy  Scripture  itself,  viz.  from 
what  St.  Paul  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  Ist 
chap.,  19th  and  20th  verses.  All  the  chief  matters 
of  God's  Word  are  mentioned  or  alluded  to  in  various 
parts  and  passages.  It  is  therefore  astonishing  to 
see  what  a  structure  of  opinion  has  been  raised  upon 
only  these  two  verses.  (See  Prof.  Jowett's  rules  as 
quoted  in  Chap.  YI.)  Nowhere  else  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture do  any  careful  writers  profess  to  find  this  idea; 
for  the  well-known  passage  which  occurs  soon  after,'*' 
is  by  them  all  and  correctly  applied  only  to  the 
moral  sense  of  right  and  wrong  in  conduct.  Yet  if 
only  those  two  first-mentioned  verses  did  plainly 
declare  the  doctrine  of  natural  theology,  it  would 
prove  that  to  be  divine  truth. 

The  precise  words  as  given  in  our  generally  excel- 
lent English  Bible  are  as  follows:  "Because  that 
which  may  be  known  of  God,  is  manifest  in  them;  [or 
to  them]  for  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them.  For 
the  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the 

*  Rom.  ii.  14,  15.— For  when  the  Gentiles,  &c.,  .  .  are  a  law  unto 
themselves.  Which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, 
&c. 


46  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and 
Godhead  ;  so  that  they  are  [or,  that  they  may  be} 
without  excuse."  In  this  there  is  no  direct  state- 
ment that  any  man  ever  did  or  ever  can  by  his  mere 
thinking  discover  for  the  first  time  the  fact  of  God's 
existence  and  His  character. 

Let  us  examine  whether  the  preceding  and  con^ 
tinuing  argument  of  the  writer,  and  a  fair  statement 
of  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  these  verses  in  accor- 
dance with  that,  and  in  our  more  usual  language,, 
will  really  express  the  idea  of  "natural  theology." 
Thus:  St.  Paul  declaring  that  (and  how)  all  men 
alike,  Jews  or  heathen  (Gentiles)  need  the  salvation 
of  God  in  Christ,  goes  on  to  say:  "The  just  dis- 
pleasure of  the  great  God  lies  upon  all  mankind. 
The  Gentiles  are  not  innocent,  though  they  have 
not  had  Moses  and  the  prophets.  For  to  all  man- 
kind alike,  the  religious  idea,  the  thought  of  God, 
had  not  only  come  by  tradition  from  Adam  and 
Noah,*  but  had  been  continually  renewed  and  cor- 
rected in  their  minds  by  the  sight  of  His  great 
works.  Thus  the  eternal  power  and  Divinity  as 
something  above  us  and  to  which  we  should  be 
obedient,  is  enough  known  to  each  soul  of  man  to 
make  him  a  wilful  sinner  if  he  will  sin.  In  fact^ 
these  Gentiles  did  not  and  do  not  obey  and  love  God 
according  to  this  knowledge.  And  as  one  of  its 
results,  this  ungodliness  darkened  their  very  intelli- 

*Only  a  little  before  St.  Paul  recognizes  the  divine  story  of  Adam  in 
Genesis;  and  that  tells  us  how  Adam  knew  God,  and  talked  with  llim,. 
as  also  did  Noah. 


SHOULD   IT   BE   TRIED  BY   "NATURAL   THEOLOGY"?        47 

gence.  So  the  more  intelligent  they  claimed  to  be, 
the  more  really  foolish  they  became  in  worldly  self- 
conceit." 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  all  this  there  is  no 
encouragement  to  the  notion  that  men  can  by  their 
mere  thoughts,  ascend  to  any  true  knowledge  of 
God.  It  teaches  the  precise  opposite.  St.  Paul 
shows  b}"  a  past  history  that  all  men  are  morally 
guilty,  and  are  by  this  in  an  actual  process  of 
farther  removal  from  the  truth  with  which  the  first 
men  began.  It  is  really  Avonderful  that  commenta- 
ries upon  this  passage  do  not  take  notice  of  this,  and 
understand  him  to  mean  that  God  shows  the  know- 
ledge of  Himself  to  all  men  "by  the  things  which  are 
made,"  in  the  way  of  reminder  and  corroboration, 
and  not  of  original  revelation.  Certainly  the  divine 
story  of  Adam  and  his  first  descendants  which  St. 
Paul  believed  (as  we  do)  tells  us  of  a  greater  know- 
ledge of  God  among  the  first  men  than  by  mere 
thoughts  about  the  seasons  and  stars.  And  he  has 
in  mind  that  first  period,  for  he  is  speaking  expressly 
of  what  men  knew  "  from  the  creation  of  the  world." 
We  have  before  shown  this,  and  also  how  that  first 
knowledge  could  never  entirely  perish  in  the  suc- 
ceeding generations,  especially  as  that  idea  of  religion 
was  refreshed  by  their  beholding  visible  works  of 
the  true  God. 

Nor  does  St.  Paul  in  this,  or  in  the  terrible  account 
of  the  increasing  degradation  of  mankind  which 
follows,  allow  of  an  exception  for  certain  philosophers 
of  Greece.     This  is  a  very  important  matter  in  our 


48  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT   "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

enquiry;  for  it  will  appear  more  and  more  in  the 
course  of  this  discussion  that  the  opinions  of  these 
men,  notably  of  Plato,  have  been  made  very  much  of 
by  the  Christian  maintainers  of  "  natural  theology  " 
—  not  to  say  allowed  as  of  the  highest  authority  in 
matters  upon  which  this  whole  stud}^  turns.  Let  us 
remember  that  Socrates  and  Plato  had  lived  and 
taught  hundreds  of  years  before  St.  Paul,  and  that 
he  was  then  surrounded  by  their  disciples  and 
admirers.  Wow  Plato's  ingenious  ideas  never  saved 
him  from  the  sensual  vices  of  hie  countrymen,  nor 
worked  any  improvement  in  morals  among  the 
Greeks  in  the  four  hundred  years  that  had  followed. 
On  the  contrary,  the  world  was  probably  more 
wncked  in  St.  Paul's  day  than  in  Plato's.  Observe 
rather,  that  if  any  men  are  singled  out  with  emphasis 
in  this  divine  condemnation,  it  is  they  who  professed 
to  be  the  (most)  "  wise  " —  GO(po\  or  philosophers  : 
see  v.  22. 

Nor  does  this  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  contain 
anv  sort  of  suggestion  that  men  come  to  a  knowledge 
of  God  by  metaphysical  thinking  about  "conscious- 
ness." or  the  "absolute,"  or  the  "conditioned,"  or 
"  ontology,"  which  is  what  all  our  later  Christian 
writers  have  in  mind  in  their  "  natural  theology." 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  at  all  an  account  of  the 
rise  and  advance  of  the  knowledge  of  God  among 
men,  but  in  the  exact  contraiy,  of  their  degradation 
from  such  knowledge  at  the  first.  We  must  then 
read  the  words  of  the  apostle  of  God  in  accord  with 
those  of  Moses  the  prophet  of  God,  and  understand 


SHOULD  IT  BE  TRIED  BY  "NATURAL   THEOLOGY"?        49 

him  to  be  telling  how  the  sons  of  Adam  fell  from 
that  state  in  which  the  knowledge  of  Himself  which 
God  had  given  to  their  forefathers,  had  come  down  to 
them,  and  was  recalled  to  their  attention  every  day 
by  the  "  things  which  were  made." 

Besides,  the  metaphysicians  in  using  these  words 
of  St.  Paul,  evidently  think  that  he  is  speaking  of 
subtle  abstract  thinkers  like  Plato  (and  themselves); 
whereas  he  is  describing  "  every  soul  of  man  "  in  the 
common  duties  and  destiny.  He  is  not  busy  and 
interested  in  the  ingenious  play  of  his  own  intellect, 
or  its  struggle  of  logic  with  other  such  ;  he  is  think- 
ing and  speaking  of  man's  state  and  Christ's  salva- 
tion, as  they  are  seen  spread  out  before  his  exalted 
and  inspired  vision.  He  sees  that  the  true  knowledge 
of  the  true  Grod  is  of  the  very  life  of  every  man, 
woman  and  child.  If  then  they  all  had  to  reason 
like  Plato,  or  Sir  W.  Hamilton,  or  even  intelligently 
to  follov/  their  arguments,  they  never  could  know  Him 
"whom  not  to  know  is  death  eternal." 

Or  are  we  asked  to  believe  that  the  common  herd 
are  at  all  times  vicariously  represented  for  this  by  the 
philosophers  ?  It  almost  seems  as  if  this  absurd 
notion  were  in  our  scholars'  minds.  Or  is  the  theory 
that  the  mass  of  us  beside  the  Platonists,  etc.,  enjoy 
the  results  of  their  severe  thinking  in  our  thus 
knowing  God  without  that  thinking?  This  is  as 
impracticable,  if  not  quite  so  preposterous  upon  its 
face,  as  the  other. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  metaphysical  process 
always  takes  place  in  the  ignorant  man's  mind 
5 


50  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

though  he  cannot  state  it  in  words.  For  if  this  be 
SO,  somebody  would  have  been  found  to  express  it  in 
the  language  of  plain  people,  so  that  they  could  now 
follow  the  account  of  it  with  assent.  Whereas  any 
such  attempt  onl}'-  sets  them  to  wondering  why  they 
never  went  through  this  necessary  approach  to 
belief.  It  is  so  foreign  to  their  experience,  and  so 
contrary  to  fact,  that  it  unsettles  their  actual  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  rather  tends  to  make  that  most 
glorious  truth  fade  from  their  apprehension  like  a 
dream  and  delusion.  Certainl}^  neither  these  nor 
any  other  arguments  for  natural  theology  are  in 
Holy  Scripture  here,  but  these  words  of  St.  Paul  are 
really  contrary  to  them. 

If  any  hesitate  still  to  discard  what  has  the 
authority  of  so  many  very  learned  and  devout  men 
let  them  go  with  me  in  studying  what  has  misled 
them.  First,  there  is  a  strong  fascination  to  minds 
of  that  turn  to  find  enjoyment  in  such  speculation 
and  not  to  notice  where  it  deviates  from  real  truth. 
Then  in  this,  though  they  set  out  at  first  to  encourage 
the  faith  of  all,  they  lose  sight  of  this  main  object  in 
a  mere  intellectual  struggle  with  the  champions  of 
doubt  (gaudia  certaminis).  As  this  "natural"  and 
metaphysical  religion  is  the  very  fighting  ground  of 
all  the  objectors  to  Christian  faith,  its  defenders  follow 
them  there  and  fanc}'  it  their  ground  too.  Without 
doubt  something  of  the  kind  may  sometimes  be  done 
to  help  convince  unbelievers  —  only  for  that,  and 
only  then  with  a  distinct  assurance  to  them  that 
our  faith  in  God  does  not  rest  upon  this  imperfect 


SHOULD   IT   BE   TRIED   BY   "NATURAL   THEOLOGY"?        51 

reasoning,  but  upon  far  better  ground.*  But  for 
aids  to  faith — for  what  Christendom  most  needs 
now,  the  re-assurance  of  those  who  have  always  had 
(at  least  intellectually)  the  Christian  knowledge  of 
God — this  is  irrational  and  harmful.  (See  Appendix 
A,  on  the  relation  between  Metaphysics  and  Theo- 
logy.) 

There  is  another  great  aspect  of  this  matter  sug- 
gested by  one  of  the  words  just  used — "intellectu- 
ally." The  philosophical  defenders  of  faith  treat  it 
as  merely  mental.  As  in  their  view  God  is  known 
only  by  an  intellectual  process  through  man's 
"consciousness,"  some  of  them  speak  of  Him  only  as 
"  Mind."  This  not  only  greatly  contracts  what  we 
may  and  need  to  know  of  Him,  but  is  exactly  con- 
trary to  the  direction  He  gives  for  attaining  such 
true  knowledge,  and  defeats  the  greatest  advantage 
of  that  knowledge  to  us.  Its  corollary  is,  the  more 
intellectual  the  man,  the  more  godly  —  at  least  the 
more  God-knowing.  Now  Holy  Scripture  (in  this 
case  words  spoken  by  the  very  AYord  of  God  in 
person)  has  an  altogether  different  account  of  this. 
It  states  a  real  order  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God, 
to  some  persons  "  revealed,"  from  others  "  hidden." 
The  former  are  the  children,  the  poor,  the  "foolish"; 
the  latter  are  "  the  wise  and  intellectual  "  (or  "  pru- 
dent," as  our  usually  admirable  version  incorrectly 
renders.  St.  Matth.  x.  25,  &c.)  So  also,  '*'  If  any  man 
will  do  His  will,  he  shall  knoio  of  the  doctrine,"  &c. — 

*  I  am  arguing  now  not  with  such,  but  with  those  who  defend  faith 
upon  inBuflScient  grounds,  and  with  people  who  have  not  renounced  that 
faith,  but  are  doubting  and  perplexed.  The  others  will  have  a  few 
words  of  kindly  expostulation  at  the  end. 


52  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

whether  what  is  taught  him  concerning  God  by  the 
Word  be  true  and  divine. — St.  John  vii.  17. 

"  Would  you  then  insult  and  degrade  religion  by 
allying  it  with  ignorance  ?  Have  not  bigots  done 
this  in  all  ages,  and  so  been  the  worst  enemies  of 
faith  ?  For  thus  they  have  driven  thoughtful  and 
honest  souls  into  unbelief;  and  so  would  you  do 
now."  To  this  I  answer  that  our  business  is  with 
this  present,  no  matter  what  mistakes  have  been  made 
in  the  past.  There  is  certainly  now  no  question  of 
dungeons  and  racks  for  people  who  know  too  much. 
Did  not  God  say  what  I  have  just  quoted,  to  the 
effect  that  intellectual  self-confidence  hinders  men 
from  learning  the  highest  truth,  and  that  obedient 
humility  promotes  that  knowledge?  And  have  1 
not  made  the  natural  and  true  application  of  this  to 
our  present  enquiry  ? 

There  is  no  greater  illustration  of  this  very  misuse 
of  "man's  wisdom"  in  applying  it  to  divine  things, 
than  that  our  Christian  writers  of  great  and  deserved 
authority  cannot  see  God's  Word  thus  plainly  for- 
bidding their  "  Natural  Theology."  It  is  not  even 
only  in  the  plain  passages  already  cited,  but  appears 
in  all  parts  of  Holy  Scripture,  especially  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles,  notably  this  very  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to 
the  Eomans,  as  well  as  his  first  to  the  Corinthians."^ 
It  tells  us  all  that  whatever  be  the  uses  of  human 
discovery  in  knowledge  of  a  lower  kind  (or  perhaps 
in  cautious  illustration  of  what  we  have  learned 
directly  in  lowly  obedience  from  a  divine  Word,  in 

*  See  Appendix  C  for  a  careful  study  of  Rom.  i.  18-ii.  16,  and  1  Cor. 
i.  and  ii. 


SHOULD   IT  BE   TRIED   BY   "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        53 

which  the  plainer  and  less  intellectually  ambitious 
people  are  more  likely  to  be  the  wisest),  here  are 
matters  in  which  it  cannot  teach  anything,  but  wiU 
actually  tend  to  mislead.  I  have  never  seen  these 
reasonings  of  "natural  theology  "  used  as  a  mere  help 
and  illustration  of  what  is  taught  by  God's  Word. 
And,  however  used,  I  have  never  seen  these  divine 
cautions  added  to  the  reasonings  by  those  who 
should  never  forget  the  spiritual  danger  to  us  all,  of 
which  the  love  of  God  gives  such  plain  warning. 

To  maintain  the  "  Natural  Theology "  as  meant 
only  for  the  more  intelligent  people  is  of  further  ill 
effect,  because  no  one  can  say  where  that  line  should 
be  drawn.  Besides,  it  is  a  suggestion  that  the 
simpler  faith  is  false,  as  being  irrational.  It  is  true 
that  the  complete  Christian  knowledge  of  God  is 
not  merely  intellectual ;  it  includes  something  far 
greater.  Yet  a  fortiori  it  includes  that  inferior  part, 
which  may  be  known  to  the  wise  and  intelligent, 
while  the  higher  part  is  hidden  from  them.  That 
knowledge,  complete,  is  the  only  real  life  of  each  soul. 
And  so  the  love  of  God  for  men  does  not  hide  the 
knowledge  of  Him  from  them  in  metaphysics  and 
"ontology,"  which  would  be  to  subject  almost  all 
those  souls  to  certain  death.  Yet  men  can  hide 
it  from  themselves,  or  themselves  from  it,  in  philo- 
sophy. 

This  erroneous  tendency  is  in  our  day  showing 
itself  in  a  new  "scientific"  contradiction  of  the  Word 
of  God.  It  tends  always  to  suppress  the  fact  that 
man  is  a  degraded  creature,  that  is,  one  that  has 


54  THE   REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

sunk  down  from  a  higher  original  nature.  But  all 
our  present  "Science"  is  full  of  the  theory  that  men 
were  at  first  very  brutish  barbarians,  upon  which 
the  lowest  tribe  now  living  are  an  improvement. 
So,  with  the  disposition  to  "  reconcile  faith  with 
modern  thought,"  we  tend  to  make  such  explanation 
of  that  sublime  truth  of  the  first  man  being  most 
innocent  and  intelligent,  and  "  walking  with  God" 
in  perfect  love,  that  it  will  be  really  denied. 

All  just  reasons  therefore  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  is  our  true  nature,  as  Grod  has  made  us,  to 
learn  truth  in  religion  from  what  He  has  directly 
revealed  to  us  according  as  we  have  obedient 
humility,  while  this  greatest  truth  is  hidden  from 
intellectual  pride.  This  is  the  healthful  and  origin- 
ally native  air  into  which,  notwithstanding  a  great 
fall  of  the  race,  we  are  yet  born,  by  the  gracious 
Divine  love,  and  in  which  we  may  regain  innocence 
and  honor  by  the  true  knowledge  of  Grod.  Why 
should  "  babes,"  for  learning  what  is  of  their  real 
life,  go  out  of  this  warm  light  of  home  into  the  very 
dark  and  cold  abandonment  of  negation  and  mere 
human  thought,  that  they  may  afterwards  regain 
this  shelter  by  their  own  exertion  ? 

Certainly,  as  we  have  seen  before,  no  example  or 
suggestion  of  such  fiital  folly  is  given  us  in  the  Book 
of  God.  But  here  is  one  of  its  statements  of  how 
men  may  come  to  know  the  highest  truth :  "  God, 
who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in 
times  past  to  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in 
these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son."     This 


SHOULD  IT  BE   TRIED  BY  "NATURAL  THEOLOGY"?        55 

too  was  immediately  addressed  to  men  who  lived 
long  after  Plato,  and  with  whom  the  same  question 
as  now  was  raised,  whether  or  not  they  should  set 
this  knowledge  from  Heaven  above  all  other  thought. 

Nor  have  any  apparent  gopd  eifects  of  Natural 
Theology  given  the  Christian  scholars  reason  to 
adhere  to  it.  Even  the  writer  already  quoted"^  says  : 
"Philosophy  has  arrived  at  no  definite  results  in 
theology  properly  so  called,  and  never  laid  down  any 
principle  as  to  the  nature  of  God  which  has  not  in 
its  turn  been  assailed  and  upset." 

Why  then  in  our  present  investigation  of  a  great 
religious  subject  should  we  resort  to  such  a  fruitless 
study  as  that?  Eather  let  us  proceed  at  once  to  the 
best,  or  rather  the  only  real  authority  for  Christians 
in  such  investigation,  viz.  Grod's  direct  Word,  spoken 
to  certain  men  for  all,  preserved  upon  earth  in  a 
divine  society  now  for  many  ages_,  and  especially 
written  in  a  Book  of  G-od  kept  and  certified  to  by 
that  Church. 

I  may  indeed  challenge  the  assent  to  this  of  all 
Christians,  even  of  those  who  contend  most  strenu- 
ously for  Natural  Theology.  They  will  say  that  all 
its  truth  is  declared  yet  more  clearly  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  God ;  so  that  anything  not  appearing 
therein,  especially  if  "  rather  repugnant  thereto,"  is 
not  of  the  true  Natural  Theology. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  these  just  conclusions: 
First,  that  if  the  assumed  idea  of  "Laws  of  Nature" 

*0hri8tlieb  — Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,  p.  79. 


56    THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

be  true,  it  is  a  truth  of  Eeligion.  Secondly,  that  in 
such  case  it  is  made  known  to  us  as  are  other  truths 
of  religion  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  follows  of 
course,  thirdly,  that  if  the  Scriptures  contain  no  such 
doctrine,  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  believing 
it;  but,  fourthly,  if  those  vScriptures  affirm  the  oppo- 
site, then  we  must  dismiss  the  idea  of  "  Laws  of 
Nature  "  and  a  "  Eeign  of  Law  "  as  a  false  specula- 
tion and  assumption. 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY   OF  KNOWLEDGE.  57 


CHAPTER  Y. 

COMPARATIVE    CERTAINTY    OF    KNOWLEDGE    BY 
"science"  OR   BY   A    WORD    OF    GOD. 

IF  we  were  to  proceed  now  to  the  test  of  a 
"reign  of  law"  by  Holy  Scripture,  we  might 
be  met  at  once  with  this  objection,  that  Scripture 
itself  must  be  interpreted  by  Science  wherever  they 
come  in  contact,  because  this  latter  is  the  more 
certain  sort  of  knowledge.  Even  some  to  whom  this 
objection  did  not  occur  at  first,  might  afterward 
have  the  force  of  our  completed  proof  impaired,  if 
not  entirely  overcome,  by  the  suggestion,  which  is 
maintained  by  some  writers  of  high  character. 
Another  notion  belongs  with  it,  and  will  also  be 
discussed  in  what  follows,  namely,  that  Science  and 
Eeligion  are  two  equal,  co-ordinate,  and  yet  inde- 
pendent kinds  of  truth,  neither  of  which  can  well 
maintain  itself  without  the  alliance  of  the  other. 
We  will  therefore  proceed  now  to  a  thorough  exam- 
ination of  these  assumptions. 

The  Almighty  Lord  having  made  man  in  His  own 
image,  and  placed  him  on  earth  among  the  inferior 
creatures,  may  have  given  him  (and  we  know  in  fact 
that  He  has)  two  general  sources  of  knowledge. 
These  may  be  distinguished  in  two  aspects :  first,  as 
to  the  subjects  and  importance  of  knowledge,  and? 
secondly,  as  to  the  certainty  of  it.  We  do  know  that 
He  has  done  all  this  with  the  most  loving  wisdom 
and  with  the  wisest  love. 


58  THE  REIGN   OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP   LAW." 

It  is  then  the  only  rational  conjecture  that  He 
has  made  the  higher  sort  of  knowledge  the  more 
certain.  It  is  quite  incredible  that  He  did  not  make 
that  which  was  the  more  important  to  man's  well- 
being  the  more  certain  to  his  apprehension.  Even 
this  presumption  would  be  increased  if  man  had 
become  in  any  way  separated  from  this  most  neces- 
sary knowledge  by  a  degradation  which  he  could 
not  of  himself  reverse ;  and  if  "  God  so  loved  the 
world"  as  to  renew  that  knowledge,  and  so  add  to 
it  as  to  give  him  thereby  again  "  everlasting  life." 

What  then  in  this  great  division  is  the  higher 
knowledge  ?  Certainly  that  of  God  Himself  and  of 
our  relations  to  Him.  What  is  the  sort  of  know- 
ledge most  important  to  man  himself?  That  of  his 
spiritual  well-being,  of  his  highest  nature,  and  of  his 
longest  enduring  welfare.  This  in  fact  belongs  in 
and  can  no  way  be  separated  from  the  highest  know- 
ledge mentioned  just  before  —  that  of  God  Himself, 
and  what  the  human  soul  has  to  do  with  Him  and 
(by  His  will  and  law)  with  fellow-men.  A  knowledge 
of  other  creatures  and  of  what  promotes  our  merely 
animal,  and  even  our  merely  intellectual,  well-being 
—  of  what  affects  this  for  three  or  four  or  five  score 
years  of  such  life  as  we  have  now  —  is  valuable,  but 
certainly  not  in  any  just  comparison  with  the  other. 

The  two  general  modes  in  which  God  gives  ua 
knowledge,  correspond  to  this  distinction  of  the  sorts 
of  knowledge.  The  one  is  by  direct  speech  of  the 
Creator  God  to  man.  The  other  is  by  giving  him 
the  intelligence  to  observe  and  reason  about  his  own 


COMPARATIVE  CERTAINTY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  59 

thoughts  and  the  creation  around  him.  The  first 
impression  from  comparing  these  must  be,  that  the 
method  by  direct  words  is  the  more  certain. 

Suppose  we  try  it  by  our  experience  with  fellow- 
men,  so  far  as  that  is  a  safe  test  of  these  matters.  If 
one  in  whom  I  am  sure  of  love  and  truth  to  me  —  as 
a  good  father  to  a  good  son  —  tell  me  something  in 
words,  and  I  go  out  and  see  something  that  he  has 
done  which  seems  to  me  not  to  accord  with  the 
words,  can  I  with  any  reason  judge  this  latter  more 
certain  information  from  him  than  his  express 
speech  ?  Upon  only  one  possible  condition  :  namely, 
that  he  inadvertently,  or  with  a  mistaken  impression 
of  faot  when  he  spoke,  said  what  he  would  afterward 
himself  correct.  But  this  could  not  apply  as  to  the 
Word  of  God. 

Without  doubt  all  such  illustrations  should  be 
used  with  reverent  caution,  and  all  their  just  qualifi- 
cations carefully  stated.  Thus,  if  it  be  said  that  God 
really  speaks  to  us  in  His  works,  intending  them  as 
His  communications  of  knowledge,  which  the  father 
in  the  case  supposed  above  does  not,  this  assumes 
too  much  in  either  case.  The  comparison  I  have 
used  is  as  just  if  the  good  father  did  intend  such 
suggestion  to  his  son,  and  did  even  sa\f,  "  I  shall 
also  tell  you  some  things  by  what  you  will  notice  I 
have  done.'"  If  there  seemed  afterward  a  conflict 
between  the  actual  words  and  what  I  inferred  from 
my  observations,  would  I  think  the  inferences  the 
more  certain  ;  or  would  I  not  more  reasonably  and 
modestly  find  the  discrepancy  to  be  caused  by  my 


60  THE  REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

mistaken  judgment  of  this  latter  information?  We 
have  indeed  a  proverb  that  "  actions  speak  louder 
than  words ";  but  that  is  an  impeachment  of  the 
sincerity  of  the  words. 

On  the  other  hand  the  objector  as  above,  assumes 
positively  that  God  does  teach  us  truth  in  our  science 
just  as  He  does  by  His  Word.  We  do  not  know  this 
directly  by  the  Divine  Word.  It  is  but  an  inference^ 
like  that  scientific  knowledge  itself,  from  our  reflec- 
tion upon  our  own  minds  and  the  creation  around 
us.  But  after  much  reflection  I  am  unable  to  see 
how  any  such  reasoning  of  ours  should  make  a 
Christian  as  sure  that  God  is  thus  instructing  him  as 
when  He  does  it  in  this  way,"  Thus  saith  the  Lord." 
It  is  an  inference  of  an  inference  which  we  are  thus 
comparing  for  certainty  with  the  direct  TTord!  of  God. 

Besides,  there  is  no  such  immeasurable  difl'erence 
of  power  and  truth  between  the  minds  of  any  son 
and  father,  as  between  one  of  us  or  all  of  us  com- 
bined and  the  knowledge  of  God.  The  son  can  in 
some  degree  try  his  father's  words  by  facts ;  for  us 
creatures  to  do  so  toward  our  Creator,  would  be 
mere  folly. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  uncertainty  to  us  of  the 
written  Word  of  God  lies  in  its  coming  to  us  through 
fellow-men,  this  can  only  be  in  so  far  as  we  reject  an 
actual  Divine  inspiration  of  those  writers.  This  is  a 
great  subject  of  itself  I  do  not  undertake  here  to 
discuss  the  diff'erent  theories  of  "  inspiration  "  which 
theologians  have  put  forth.  But  even  upon  the 
lowest  Christian  view  of  this  as  regards  the  Old  and 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY   OF   KNOWLEDGE.  61 

New  Testaments,  there  is  no  comparison  of  certainty 
between  these  and  what  some  men  write  and  others 
read  as  "  Science."  If  I  were  arguing  with  those 
who  think  that  the  Lectures  of  Prof.  John  Tyndall, 
or  even  the  Principia  of  Kewton,  have  as  much 
certainty  of  truth  as  the  Grospels,  or  more,  I  would 
not  suppose  it  to  be  a  discussion  between  Christians. 

In  the  comparison  we  must  also  consider  how  the 
different  kinds  of  knowledge  reach,  not  merely  the 
few  thousands  of  men  who  make  or  carefully  follow 
the  scientific  processes  of  discovery,  but  all  the 
minds  of  mankind,  say  at  least  of  the  present  Chris- 
tendom. For  almost  all  of  these  the  scientific  know- 
ledge comes  to  them  in  the  writings  —  the  books  — 
of  the  scientific  few,  or  more  commonly  of  those  who 
compile  from  them.  So  that  this,  besides  its  first 
uncertainty,  has  also  in  a  greater  degree  that  same 
element  of  imperfection  in  human  authorship  which 
is  erroneously  objected  to  our  sacred  writings,  and 
without  their  inspiration. 

But  suppose  it  be  still  insisted  that  human  lan- 
guage in  writings  is  incurably  uncertain  as  a  medium 
of  knowledge,  as  shown  by  the  ver}^  disputes  of  men 
over  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  We  need 
only  reflect  that  this  is  even  yet  more  true  of  scien- 
tific knowledge.  For  what  does  the  discoverer  and 
reasoner  in  this  make  haste  to  do  at  last,  and  account 
his  greatest  achievement?  To  state  his  result  in  the 
best  words,  so  as  to  reach  the  minds  of  other  men. 
Do  not  all  such  teachers  send  the  rest  of  us  rather  to 
the  libraries  than  the  laboratories,  and  look  to  be 
6 


63  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT   "THE   BETGN   OP  LAW." 

sustained,  applauded  and  rewarded  by  the  men  who 
read?  Our  science  owes  everything  to  human 
speech.  It  cannot  move  without  it;  it  cannot  afford 
to  disparage  it. 

Granted  that  the  controversies  of  Christians  prove 
that  some  men,  and  perhaps  all  in  some  degree,  do 
not  obtain  in  the  Word  of  God  perfect  knowledge  of 
the  truth  it  contains.  This  can  be  best  understood 
fey  moral  causes  —  the  prejudices  and  perversity  of 
our  loss  of  original  innocence,  some  of  which  still 
remain,  even  in  those  most  restored  to  goodness. 
Yet  the  useful  knowledge  which  they  do  gain  from 
the  Word  of  God  is  of  immense  value.  Man's  lan- 
guage is,  like  his  mind  and  all  else  about  him,  limited, 
and  cannot  contain  all  the  Divine  truth.  But  this 
imperfection  of  language  goes  to  all  its  other  uses  in 
a  yet  greater  degree. 

The  Divine  Word  is  not  merely  a  wonderful  book 
cast  upon  the  earth  for  each  one  to  read  or  neglect 
or  misinterpret  as  he  pleases.  It  is  the  substance  of 
all  that  God  has  said  to  men,  preserved  and  pro- 
claimed among  them  by  a  perpetual  society  of  men 
under  His  patronage,  and  which  is  especially  "  the 
witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ:'  How  entirely 
different  in  this  respect  is  our  science  at  its  best ! 
It  is  the  mere  substance  or  result  of  what  individual 
men  have  written,  or  do  now,  without  organization 
and  without  responsibility. 

A  greater  difference  yet  is  to  be  observed  in  that, 
whatever  be  the  imperfection  of  human  language,  it 
is  what  God  in  His  love  has  made  for  man  as  the 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY   OF   KNOWLB.DGE.  63 

vehicle  of  truth ;  so  its  most  complete  and  successful 
use  should  be  when  He  by  it  conveys  to  them  the 
highest  and  most  useful  knowledge.  There  is  but 
one  imaginable  escape  from  the  application  of  this  to 
our  present  question.  That  would  be  in  proving 
that  the  religious  knowledge  was  much  the  less 
important  to  man's  welfare.  Assuredly,  any  argu- 
ment founded  upon  that  great  fact,  the  love  of  God, 
ought  to  have  the  greatest  force  in  this  enquiry. 

Yery  few  will  in  terms  deny  that  the  moral  and 
spiritual  welfare  of  mankind  is  their  chief  interest. 
But  even  this  does  not  adequately  state  the  matter 
before  us.  In  such  discussion  Christians  should 
rather  fix  their  thoughts  from  the  first  upon  the  real 
nature  and  life  of  man.  They  do  know  with  absolute 
certainty  of  truth  that  the  first  and  great  command- 
ment of  this,  its  foundation  principle  and  man's  pur- 
pose of  existence,  is,  to  love  God  Himself  with  a 
personal  affection  which  not  only  transcends,  but 
virtually  includes  all  other  purposes  and  true  motives. 
For  this  then  all  the  other  parts  and  powers  of 
human  life  really  exist.  This  is  true  even  of  the 
kindly  affections,  in  various  relations,  towards  fellow 
human  creatures  ("thy  neighbor")  which  make  up 
so  much  of  a  good  life.  It  may  even  be  wisely 
believed  by  us,  with  far  more  certainty  than  our 
sciences,  that  only  for  that  same  purpose  exists  all 
the  "  Nature  "  about  which  our  other  knowledge  is 
concerned.  This  is  what  man  was  made  to  do  (let 
us  mark  these  words  well,)  "with  all  his  heart,  with 
all  his  soul,  and   with  all  his  mind."     This  is  what 


64  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT  "THE   KEIGN   OF   LAW." 

the  perfect  truth  enjoins  upon  us  all  when  it  says: 
"  Whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God  ":  in  a 
happy  devotion  to  another  person,  which  is  honor 
and  joy  in  itself.  This  is  the  knowledge  which  will 
survive  with  us  and  concern  us  as  immortal  forever ; 
while  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  the  other  will 
be  anything  to  us  after  the  four-score  years  or  less 
of  this  life. 

It  follows  therefore  that  far  the  most  important 
knowledge  for  men  is  personally  to  know  the 
Supreme  Person,  their  relations  and  duties  to  Him, 
and  with  this  all  that  belongs  to  their  moral  and 
spiritual  life.  If  their  original  health  of  soul  in  this 
has  been  disturbed  and  really  lost,  their  most  urgent 
necessity  is  to  know  whatsoever  the  merciful  love  of 
God  has  provided  for  regaining  it.  Let  us  recall  one 
or  two  of  the  plain  sentences  of  Holy  Writ  in  which 
the  comparison  of  the  Divine  and  spiritual  knowledge 
with  any  other  is  given  to  us.  "  While  we  look  not 
at  the  things  which  are  seen,  but  at  the  things  which 
are  unseen  ;  for  the  things  which  are  seen  are  tem- 
poral, but  the  things  which  are  unseen  are  eternal." 
—  2  Cor.  iv.  18.  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  His  righteousness,  and  all  these  things 
shall  be  added  unto  you." — St.  Matth.  vi.  33. 

Considered  then  only  as  to  comparative  importance 
to  man's  purpose  of  existence  and  his  welfare,  I  make 
bold  to  say  that  it  is  certain  that  God,  who  is  love, 
would  give  him  the  religious  knowledge  with  cer- 
tainty, rather  than  the  scientific  and  secular.  Let 
us  not  fail  to  remember  also  that  the  former  affects 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY   OF   KNOWLEDGE.  65 

the  whole  present  life  of  all  men  more  than  the  latter ; 
that  upon  the  cheerfulness,  patience,  hope,  peace  of 
soul  and  kind  affections  which  belong  with  it,  depends 
far  more  than  upon  any  physical  well-being  which 
the  other  can  promote,  whether  the  mass  of  man- 
kind shall  have  the  least  pain  and  most  enjoyment 
in  this  world. 

It  is  incredible  then  that  the  One  "  from  whom  all 
goodness  flows,"  and  all  knowledge  proceeds,  should 
have  made  the  superior  and  more  important  truth 
uncertain  and  doubtfully  dependent  upon  the  inferior. 
Would  the  Good  One  leave  His  hapless  creatures 
to  be  entangled  by  the  apparent  contradiction  of 
their  faith  in  His  great  salvation  by  inferior  but 
more  certain  knowledge,  so  as  to  lose  that  faith? 
"  Philosophers  "  may  only  smile  at  this,  and  feel  safe 
in  what  they  think  their  love  of  truth.  They  even 
believe  themselves  of  a  more  kindly  spirit  towards 
fellow-men  than  those  who  "sound  an  alarm"  against 
whatever  impairs  Christian  faith  among  plain  people. 
But  what  sort  of  philanthropy  is  that  which  is  so 
engrossed  with  the  intellectual  pleasures  of  ten 
thousand  men  and  a  few  bookish  women  and  chil- 
dren, that  it  does  not  make  any  account  of  what 
goes  into  every  house  and  hovel,  and  decides  whether 
one  hundred  millions  of  souls  shall  be  happy  or  no? 

All  these  just  aspects  of  the  question  converge 
upon  the  conclusion  that  the  knowledge  which  God 
has  given  us  directly  in  His  Word  is  more  certain 
than  what  we  believe  Him  to  have  conveyed  to  us 
indirectly  by  scientific  investigation.     Yet  there  are 


66  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

eminent  and  honest  Christians  who  virtually  deprive 
this  truth  of  its  effect  by  saying  that  indeed  the 
Word  of  God  is  infallibly  correct,  but  that  our  appre- 
hension of  it  is  incorrect  whenever  that  does  not 
agree  with  "  science."  Whereupon  our  very  love  of 
that  Divine  truth  requires  us  to  readjust  this  sup- 
posed meaning  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  the  latest 
"  science "  as  often  as  this  discrepancy  is  noticed. 
This  idea  is  sometimes  accompanied  by  the  sugges- 
tion that  such  discrepancies  only  occur  where  natural 
facts  are  but  incidentally  mentioned  in  the  Divine 
Word,  and  do  not  really  belong  with  the  spiritual 
verities  which  it  means  alone  to  declare,  and  in 
which  it  is  without  error  and  beyond  correction. 

We  might  with  entire  truth  and  justice  deny  any 
just  application  of  this  to  our  present  enquiry,  and 
proceed  at  once  to  the  examination  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture contained  in  the  chapters  which  follow.  It  is  a 
mere  assumption,  offering  no  proof,  and  so  entitled 
to  no  weight,  and  really  at  once  begging  the  main 
question.  It  is  even  a  double  fallacy  as  "  reasoning 
in  a  circle "  thus :  The  "  reign  of  law "  cannot  be 
disproved  or  tried  at  all  by  Holy  Scripture,  because 
that  must  be  interpreted  according  to  our  modern 
science,  which  is  itself  founded  upon  the  "  reign  of 
law."  This,  notwithstanding  it  has  been  already 
(see  Chap.  III.)  shown  to  be  a  religious  rather  than  a 
scientific  question.  In  fact  the  objection  really, 
though  not  in  the  intention  of  its  authors,  is  but  an 
evasion  of  what  has  already  been  proved  of  the 
superior  certainty  of  the  Word  of  God.     Yet,  as  it 


COMPARATIVE  CERTAINTY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  67 

does  entangle  and  confuse  so  many  minds,  let  us 
carefully  examine  it  in  this  shape. 

We  are  all  agreed  that  the  Word  of  God  does  not 
intend  to  teach  "science";  and  also  that  in  its 
incidental  mention  of  ordinary  natural  facts  it  gives 
their  appearance  rather  than  their  reality.  So  does 
all  our  language  now  after  every  discovery;  and  this 
not  merely  in  the  loose  speech  of  ignorant  people, 
but  in  the  careful  writing  of  the  best  informed.  Our 
most  exact  men  of  science  will  describe  their  nicest 
observations  thus :  "  Soon  after  the  sun  rose  the 
clouds  presented  a  very  unusual  appearance,"  etc. 
We  agree  that  in  the  narrative  parts  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture some  men  speak  according  to  the  notions  of 
their  age  and  country,  however  incorrect  these 
notions  have  since  been  discovered  to  be.  This  is 
true  history.  What  these  men  said  may  not  be  true, 
but  it  is  true  that  they  said  it,  as  much  as  that  "  the 
fool  hath  said  in  his  heart,  There  is  no  God." 

Yet  unless  we  believe  that  whatever  the  Holy 
Scriptures  assert  directly  and  as  true,  is  true,  we 
cannot  fully  believe  in  them  as  the  Word  of  God. 
We  cannot  cure  this  by  the  distinction  that  whatever 
is  moral  and  spiritual  is  the  perfect  divine;  while 
what  is  natural  and  physical  is  the  fallible  human. 
For  this  finally  leaves  the  question  of  what  we  are  to 
believe  from  the  Word  of  God  to  each  man's  fallible 
human  judgment.  This  is  precisely  what  is  called 
"rationalism,"  and  is  rightly  denied  in  matters  of 
doctrine  as  overthrowing  all  real  faith  in  God's 
Word.     It  is  as  fatally  wrong  in  matters  of  fact ;  for 


68  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   :SOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

men  will  and  actually  do  disagree  in  particular 
instances  as  to  what  is  spiritual  and  what  natural. 

Besides,  the  spiritual  and  natural  are  usually  so 
connected  in  Holy  Scripture  that  they  must  be 
believed  or  denied  together.  Of  this  all  miracles, 
prophecies  and  even  Divine  promises  of  temporal 
good  are  some  instances.  If  the  spiritual  truths  of 
the  Gospels  are  alone  divinely  true,  while  I  may 
correct  the  rest  by  the  *'  laws  of  Nature  "  known  to 
us  now,  why  should  I  believe  something  so  contrary 
to  these  "laws"  as  that  a  man  rose  from  the  dead, 
or  any  of  those  great  wonders  which  prove  to  us 
that  we  have  any  Word  of  God  at  all  ?  Prof.  Tyndall 
has  in  fact  just  applied  this  notion  to  the  Song  of  the 
Angels  at  Bethlehem,  in  a  way  which  I  could  not 
object  to  if  I  accepted  the  notion  that  our  Holy 
Scriptures  are  true  barely  as  to  the  spiritual. 

It  is  fatally  injurious  to  faith  in  the  Word  of  God, 
because  it  suggests  the  question  whether  God  would 
teach. us  what  is  true  spiritually  by  means  of  what 
is  false  physically.  To  say  that  this  is  necessary 
from  the  limit  of  man's  intelligence  and  the  imper- 
fection of  his  language,  cannot  protect  that  faith. 
For  it  violates  our  just  instinct  of  thought  of  the 
almighty  power  of  Him  who  made  man  and  his 
language  what  they  are,  and  could  certainly  adjust 
and  use  them  to  effect  His  loving  will  perfectly. 
Why  then  did  He  convey  the  spiritual  truth  in 
connection  with  physical  error,  which  would  expose 
me  to  my  own  intellectual  doubts  and  the  cavils  of 
unbelievers  ?  Are  there  not  enough  moral  difficulties 
of  faith  in  my  own  perverseness  and  my  temptations? 


COMPARATIVE   CKKTAINTY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  69 

Nor  is  it  true  that  what  is  distinguished  as  natural 
and  not  spiritual  and  supernatural  is  never  mentioned 
in  Holy  Writ  as  itself  revealed,  but  only  incidentally 
in  revealing  what  is  spiritual.  In  what  sense  is  this 
true  of  the  story  of  "  the  beginning  "  in  the  First 
Book  of  Moses  ?  How  in  any  fair  reading  of  that 
can  we  understand  it  otherwise  than  as  a  direct  and 
circumstantial  account  of  the  creation  of  all  the 
"Nature"  which  we  know?  Why  was  this  given 
unless  to  be  believed  ?  believed,  not  merely  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century^  when  geology 
and  astronomy  gave  us  a  scientific  explanation,  but 
as  well  for  the  three  or  four  thousand  years  between 
Moses  and  the  modern  "  scientists  "  ?  We  cannot  ex- 
pect men  to  believe  with  a  high  and  earnest  religious 
faith  what  could  not  but  have  been  entirely  misun- 
derstood by  the  first  hundred  generations  to  whom 
it  was  revealed. 

It  is  but  another  illustration  of  this  mistake  that 
some  orthodox  Christians  try  to  escape  from  the 
scientific  difficulties  by  discrediting  those  first  great 
words  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  as  not  having  the 
same  author  as  the  rest,  or,  at  least,  being  the  mere 
impressions  of  the  uninformed  man,  which  we,  of  an 
enlightened  age,  can  transform  to  a  true  account  of 
the  creation.  What  then  shall  we  say  of  the  Fourth 
Commandment  ?  It  is  among  the  most  purely 
moral  and  spiritual  sayings  of  Holy  Scripture.  It 
has  710  defect  of  human  composition,  originally 
being  "  written  with  the  finger  of  God  upon  a  table 
of  stone."     Every  element  of  majesty  and  authority 


70  THE   llEIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "  THE  KEIGN  OP  LAW." 

combines  to  make  it  as  certainly  "  the  Word  of 
God "  as  anything  in  Holy  Writ.  Yet  it  contains 
not  only  a  reference  which  gives  the  highest  sanction 
to  that  account  of  creation  impugned  by  our  modern 
science,  but  even  an  affirmation  of  the  very  thing  in 
it  w^hich  is  most  objected  to  on  the  one  side  and 
most  laboriously  "  reconciled  "  on  the  other.  It  is 
given  as  the  Divine  reason  why  we  are  to  consecrate 
every  seventh  of  our  actual  days  to  religion,  because 
"  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,"  etc. 
Is  this,  too,  an  instance  of  the  merely  natural  and 
physical  side  of  Holy  Scripture  which  is  not  inspired 
of  God,  and  so  is  subject  to  correction  by  our 
science  ? 

Then  also,  our  science  is  by  all  confession  of  its 
intelligent  votaries  very  incomplete.  To  think 
otherwise  would  be  to  stop  at  once  all  that  triumphant 
progress  which  is  so  much  admired.  As  it  is  sup- 
posed to  have  vast  conquests  before  it,  so,  of  neces- 
sity, it  has  as  yet  mastered  but  a  very  small  part  of 
its  field.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Word  of  God  to 
men  was  completed  near  two  thousand  years  ago. 
While  the  other  has  been  making  its  very  incom- 
plete advances,  it  has  stood  without  change  and 
without  addition ;  all-sufficient  for  its  superior  pur- 
pose. Is  it  reasonable  to  adjust  the  greater  to  the 
less ;  the  perfect  to  the  incomplete  ?  Must  it  not  be 
a  needless,  a  doubtful,  and  a  very  dangerous  process  ? 
We  shall  find  an  illustration  of  how  it  impairs  faith 
in  our  Word  of  God  in  many  thousands  of  less  in- 
formed minds,  in  the  statements  of  those  Christian 


COMPARATIVE  CERTAINTY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  71 

writers  who  are  fascinated  by  it ;  while  under  various 
better  influences  they  still  hold  fast  to  the  Christian 
creed.  One  such  says  :  "  If  science  really  proves 
that  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  is  false,  then  we 
will  give  up  the  Mosaic  account,  &c.  But  it  never  will," 
&c.*  Is  that  the  language  of  such  faith  as  St.  Paul 
had  ?  I  am  sure  that  that  faith,  representing  what 
we  must  all  aspire  to,  and  by  holy  inspiration  warn- 
ing us  against  "  man's  wisdom  "  in  any  such  conflict, 
would  say  rather,  "  Then  we  will  give  up  the 
science.'' 

I  find  as  forcible  an  illustration  of  this  tendency  in 
the  following  sentence  carefully  published  by  a  theo- 
logian of  high  repute  as  well  in  Europe  as  America 
as  a  sound  divine  and  profound  thinker :  "  Science 
has  a  foundation  and  so  has  religion;  let  them  unite 
their  foundations,"  &c.f  The  former,  indeed,  we 
have  reason  to  think  contains  much  useful  truth  ; 
but  it  is  not  according  to  Christian  faith  to  believe 
it  worthy  of  any  comparison  with  the  Gospel  of 
God,  either  for  the  importance  or  the  certainty  of  its 
propositions. 

But  I  would  notice  even  more  in  detail  what  has 
appeared  in  a  religious  journal  under  a  signature  of 
high  authority  and  well  deserved  influence.J  In  the 
midst  of  what  is  all  expressed  with  the  writer's 
elegance  and  force  comes  this  passage  :  "  We  go 
farther  still,  and  hold  that  in  all  that  belongs  to  the 
natural  form  and  expression  of  religion,  deference 

*Ed.  Ch.  Journal,  N.  Y.,  September  Slst,  1876. 

t  Dr.  McCoah. 

%  "  F.  D.  H."  in  "  Churchman,"  November  4th,  1876. 


72  THE   RETGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

must  be  paid  to  any  proved  fact  or  demonstrated  law 
in  the  physical  world.  That  is,  if  the  Bible  should  be 
found  to  affirm  anything  as  in  the  sphere  of  nature 
which  science  can  show  to  be  contrary  to  nature, 
the  written  account  must  yield.  Direct  communica- 
tion by  God's  works  is  there  more  sure  than  the  in- 
direct by  human  hands.  In  the  sphere  of  the  super- 
natural, the  realm  of  the  spirit,  of  the  future  life,  of 
God  and  angels  and  of  purely  spiritual  doctrine, 
science  has  no  vocation  or  function  ;  can  affirm 
nothing  and  deny  nothing,  is  simply  incompetent. 
Here  is  the  real  security  of  a  positive  faith  and  her 
domain  against  all  possible  scientific  or  so-called 
scientific  assaults.  But  when  we  come  to  records,  to 
a  Bcripture,  or  to  statements  about  natural  things  as 
natural^  any  ascertained  verity  in  the  rocks  or  stars 
or  mathematics  is  good  against  any  verbal  representa- 
tion," etc. 

What  is  said  in  this  of  men's  science  being  "direct 
communication  "  from  God,  and  His  Word  "  indirect," 
after  the  careful  discussion  of  these  matters  in  the 
first  part  of  this  chapter,  hardly  needs  more  for  its 
refutation  than  its  statement  apart  from  the  influ- 
ence and  the  elegant  rhetoric  of  the  writer.  But  to 
make  sure  in  so  serious  an  affair,  let  us  observe  it  in 
this  just  paraphrase :  "  Many  different  men  in  various 
ages  and  lands,  observe  and  compare  and  generalize, 
and  contend  with  one  another,  and  write  and  pub- 
lish about  this  world  which  God  has  made  around 
us^  what  the  rest  of  us  receive  as  science.  This  is 
'direct  communication  '  from   Him!     *  Holy  men   of 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY   OF   KNOWLEDGE.  73 

old  spake  (and  wrote,  for  '  all  Scripture  is  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God,')  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Grhost':  and  this  is  the  'indirect  by  human  hands'." 
Surely, 

— "  the  force  of  folly  could  no  farther  go." 

There  is  an  advantage  to  truth  in  having  that 
strange  inversion  of  the  terms  "  direct  "  and  "  indi- 
rect," which  has  been  examined  in  the  general  in  the 
first  part  of  this  chapter,  reviewed  in  this  instance  of 
its  statement  by  a  writer  who  expresses  the  opinion 
of  many,  and  by  his  well-deserved  influence  other- 
wise is  likely,  if  not  confuted,  to  extend  it  to  more. 

The  "  we  "  who  are  concerned  are  all  of  us  to 
whom  this  question  comes, —  whether  on  account  of 
modern  science  we  ought  to  discard,  or  to  change, 
our  religious  belief  as  we  have  understood  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Bible  to  declare 
that  truth.  The  writer  says  we  should  not  discard, 
but  adjust  the  faith  to  the  science,  because  the  latter 
is  a  direct  communication  from  Grod,  while  "  the 
Bible,"  the  "  written  account,"  "  records  "  or  "  a 
Scripture,"  is  "  as  in  the  sphere  of  nature,"  but  "  in- 
direct." Why  ?  Because  whatever  is  written  is 
"  by  human  hands."  But  do  not  we,  most  (and 
virtually  all)  of  us,  including,  I  presume,  the  accom- 
plished writer,  learn  our  geology  and  astronomy 
"  biology  "  and  "  sociology  "  from  books,  and  thus 
"  by  human  hands  "  ?  Is  there  such  essential  imper- 
fection in  written  words  as  the  vehicles  of  God's 
communication  of  truth  to  man,  that  even  "  inspira- 
7 


74  THE   KEIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  liEIGN   OF  LAW." 

tion  of  Grod  "  cannot  overcome  it  ?  And  yet  are  they 
when  they  come  to  us  in  a  book  of  Herschel  or 
Hugh  Miller  (not  to  say  Profs.  Tyndall  and  Huxley), 
what  is  "  good  against  any  verbal  representation  "  of 
the  Holy  Book  ?  And  does  not  the  very  scientific 
discovery,  before  it  is  put  in  words,  come  "  by  human 
hands" — having  thus  another  remove  from  direct 
communication  by  the  G-reat  God  to  men,  if  we  dare 
venture  (as  I  do  not)  to  call  it  such  at  all  ? 

Why  confine  this  to  "  the  physical  world  "  ?  Is 
not  man's  soul  and  his  thoughts  among  "  G-od's 
works  ";  and  so  our  study  of  them  "  direct  communi- 
cation "  about  them  from  Him,  which  is  thus  "  more 
sure  than  the  indirect  by  human  hands  " — (meaning 
the  Holy  Gospels)  ?  Who  can  draw  the  precise  line 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  between  what  is  "  as  in  the 
sphere  of  nature"  and  "the  sphere  of  the  super- 
natural "  ?  The  Duke  of  Argyll,  who  is  a  high 
authority  in  this  sort  of  Christian  science,  labors 
hard,*  and,  as  I  suppose,  his  admirers  think  success- 
fully, to  prove  that  there  is  no  such  true  distinction 
of  natural  and  supernatural. 

Will  F.  D.  H.  draw  this  distinction  as  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  First  Book  of  Moses  ?  Will  he  point  out 
why,  for  "  the  supernatural  "  or  for  *'  purely  spiritual 
doctrine,"  any  account  of  the  creation  should  be  given 
at  all ;  and  as  something  not  meant  to  be  believed 
when  "  ascertained  verities  in  rocks,  or  stars,  or 
mathematics  "  should  be  set  forth  by  scientific  men  ? 
And  why  is  whatever  such  men  convince  us  of  in 

*'•  Reign  of  Law,"  Chap.  I. 


COMPARATIVE   CERTAINTY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  75 

onr  day,  an  "  ascertained  verity,"  (just  as  the  Ptole- 
maic system  of  astronomy,  and  the  notion  of  the 
"  four  elements  "  were  once) ;  while  no  such  thing  can 
come  to  our  knowledge  about  "  natural  things  as 
natural  "  by  the  *'  verbal  representation  "  of  the 
Almighty  Lord  ?  To  my  best  reason  the  exact 
reverse  of  this  is  true.  In  a  conflict  of  this  kind  the 
ascertained  verity  will  be  rather  in  what  God  tells 
men  directly  in  words  than  in  their  studies  of  His 
material  creation,  were  we  the  original  discoverers 
of  science,  and  quite  as  much  when  we  read  their 
books,  which  are  at  best  very  small  and  imperfect 
copyings  out  of  what  they  call  a  "  Book  of  Nature." 

It  is  also  a  very  weighty  suggestion  of  truth  in 
such  questions  as  these,  to  consider  which  of  the 
methods  compared  would  most  promote  the  spiritual 
good  of  men.  That  we  agree  is  the  chief  purpose  of 
the  Word  of  Grod.  That  is  the  main  purpose  of  the 
Divine  love  in  all  that  is  about  us,  and  all  that  we  can 
know — "all  things,  visible  and  invisible."  Humility 
and  faith  in  God  are  our  greatest  intellectual  necessi- 
ties. Unbelief  in  these  spiritual  verities,  dullness  of 
perception  that  way,  and  pride  of  opinion,  are  our 
chief  dangers.  Which  must  be  of  best  effect  as 
regards  this  about  anything :  to  believe  more  in  the 
science  of  men,  or  the  written  Word  of  God  ? 

"  Here  is  the  real  security  of  a  positive  faith." 
Not  in  false  distinctions  and  absurd  comparisons  j 
but  in  strong,  simple,  direct  faith  in  God  as  He 
speaks  to  us  in  His  Church  and  in  His  Book ;  so  that 
what  He  thus  tells  us  about  anything  is  the  absolute 


76  THE  REIGN  OP   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

truth,  no  matter  what  else  seems  to  contradict  it. 
If  we  adhere  to  this  we  need  not  mind  the  reproaches 
of  those  who  call  us  "  blind  "  and  "  narrow,"  and  say 
that  in  our  panic  at  the  advancement  of  knowledge 
we  "  refuse  to  make  room  for  all  the  facts."  That  is 
a  mere  begging  of  the  question.  That  question  is 
precisely :  "  What  are  the  facts  ?  "  We  say,  first  and 
certainly,  whatsoever  God  has  told  to  man  in  His 
most  august  and  gracious  Word  ;  and  secondly,  and 
probably,  many  curious  things  that  we  can  find  out 
by  the  notice  and  reflection  of  men,  accumulating 
through  all  the  ages. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  77 

CHAPTEK   YI. 

EXAMINATION    OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

WHAT  follows  is  the  result  of  a  complete  and 
careful  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  with 
the  purpose  of  finding  and  following  the  truth  in  this 
matter,  without  regard  to  previous  impressions.  All 
was  thus  read,  so  that  nothing  should  escape  atten- 
tion, whether  belonging  directly  to  this  enquiry  or 
only  incidental  thereto.  Some  eight  thousand  such 
passages  have  been  carefully  examined.  The  general 
method  has  been  as  follows:  Every  passage  has 
been  noted  which  (a)  has  ever  been  suggested  as 
speaking  of,  or  alluding  to,  "  laws  of  nature,"  or 
which  being  of  the  same  general  purport  as  these,  or 
for  any  other  reason  might  possibly  be  cited  to  that 
effect ;  (b)  such  as  plainly  mention  "  natural  "  occur- 
rences as  being  done  by  the  immediate  act  of  God  ; 
(c)  all  relating  to  creation  ;  or  (d)  to  the  work  of 
God  in  providence;  or  (e)  to  miracles;  or  (f)  to  His 
granting  the  prayers  of  men  for  material  good  ;  and 
(g)  prophecies. 

There  is  a  curious  suggestion  in  the  very  numbers 
found  under  these  heads,  as  follows  ;  and  it  is  not 
without  force  to  the  candid  mind  in  the  study  which 
is  before  us.  There  are  of  such,  (a)  12,  (b)  55,  (c) 
240,  (d)  4000+,  (e)  3600+,  (f )  334,  (g)  2000-I-.  Com- 
pare especially  those  enumerated  as  (a)  and  (b)  which 
present   the   issue   most    distinctly.      Those   which 


78  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

declare  expressly  the  reign  of  God  are  more  than 
fourfold  all  that  can  be  assumed  as  suggesting  a 
"  reign  of  law,"  while  the  hundred  times  as  many 
others  throw  their  incidental  weight  the  same  way. 
But  the  real  and  conclusive  judgment  must  be  found 
in  the  scrutiny  of  the  several  passages  as  we  proceed 
through  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  combined  result  of 
them  all. 

Prof.  Jowett*  makes  some  very  correct  and  for- 
cible observations  upon  the  error  of  constructing  what 
is  set  up  as  a  great  doctrine  of  religion  out  of  very 
scant  material  in  the  Book  of  God.  He  is,  indeed, 
mistaken  in  the  instance  and  aj^plication  which  he 
gives,  but  no  one  can  dispute  his  scholarship  and 
critical  acuteness;  nor  could  any  one  impeach  his 
authority  in  our  question  upon  the  ground  of  ortho- 
dox bigotry. 

He  says  :  "  How  slender  is  the  foundation  in  the 
New  Testament  for  the  doctrine  .  .  .  .  !  two  pass- 
ages of  St.  Paul  at  most,  and  those  of  uncertain  in- 
terpretation !  The  little  cloud  no  larger  than  a 
man's  hand  has  covered  the  heavens.  To  reduce 
such  subjects  to  their  proper  proportions  we  should 
consider  first,  what  space  they  occupy  in  Scripture  ; 
secondly,  how  far  the  language  used  concerning  them 
is  literal  or  figurative ;  thirdly,  whether  they  agree 
with  the  vxore  general  truths  of  Scripture  and  our 
moral  sense,  or  are  not  -rather  repugnant  thereto'; 
fourthly,  whether  their  origin  may  not  be  prior  to 
Christianity,  or  traceable  in  the  after  history  of  the 
Church ;  fifthly,  how  far  to  ourselves  they  are  any  more 

*  1  Ep.  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Theda,  with  critical  notes,  p.  162. 


HOLY   8CRTPTUKE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT. 


than  words.''     Our  present   enquiry  will  give  us  a 
surprising  illustration  of  each  of  these  rules.* 

We  will  proceed  upon  this  study  of  Holy  Writ  in 
its  historical  order.  The  One  who  is  the  Cause  and 
the  Reason  of  all  else  begins  His  written  Word  to 
mankind  with  an  account  of  how  He  created  all 
things.  That  He  should  thus  give  a  "  cosmogony  " 
or  account  of  the  creation,f  seems  to  displease  some 
of  our  men  of  science.  But  to  Christian  belief  this 
notion  of  theirs  appears  absurd.  For  He,  and  really 
He  alone,  could  tell  of  the  creation.  And  as  it  is  the 
assumption  and  suggestion  of  all  His  Word  that  all 
this  was  done  so  that  man  might  love  and  "  glorify  " 
Him,  we  would  naturally  hope  to  find  it  told  in  that 
Word.  A  "  cosmogony  "  of  man's  devising,  and  that 
brought  forward  only  after  a  hundred  generations  of 
them  had  lived  and  died — a  matter  of  hypotheses 
and  inferences — could  not  at  all  hold  its  ground 
against  a  true  historical  and  Divine  account  of  the 
creation.  It  does  not  mend  this  that  our  intellectual 
acrobats  walk  so  boldly  on  the  slender  wires  of  their 
theories  over  the  vast  abysses  of  the  past ;  or  that 
they  insist  positively  that  their  geology  is  the  Word 
of  God,  written  by  Him  upon  the  rocks  to  tell  the 
story  of  that  past. 

*  See  Appendix  C  for  the  precise  method  and  rules  by  which  this  ex- 
amination of  Holy  Scripture  has  been  made. 

tLove  of  truth  requires  us  to  translate  such  terms  into  plain  English; 
for  really,  while  our  ambitious  modern  speculators  may  have  a  dialect 
of  their  own,  made  up  of  pedantic  terms  either  obsolete  or  fresh-coined, 
they  have  no  right  to  force  it  into  the  correct  use  of  the  language,  especi- 
ally where,  as  in  this  case,  it  may  hide  the  real  force  of  their  thoughts 
from  their  readers.  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  what  I  say  above  of  men  of 
science  objecting  to  a  Divine  "cosmogony,"  since  one  so  eminent  as 
Prof.  Tyndall.  and  who  knows  how  to  set  his  thoughts  in  most  '"lear  and 
eloquent  phrase,  has  done  this  distinctly  in  his  famous  Uelfast  address. 


80  THE  KEIGN   OP   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

In  this  Divine  story  of  the  Creation  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  "  laws  of  nature,"  or  of  any  mechan- 
ism set  in  motion  by  the  Creator  which  corresponds 
to  a  "  reign  of  law."  Those  who  already  held  that 
notion  might  fancy  that  they  found  a  suggestion  of 
it  in  the  third  day's  creation,  of  the  tree  and  plant 
'*  whose  seed  is  in  itself."  But  simply  and  fairly  this 
means  the  first  creation  of  what  had  life,  and  with  it 
growth  and  decay,  their  perpetuation  being  not  as 
with  some  things  like  *'  the  everlasting  hills,"  by  the 
continuance  of  what  was  first  made,  but  of  other 
individuals  of  the  same  kind  in  succession.  This  re- 
production and  new  life  might  then  as  well  be  by 
the  direct  will  of  God  as  was  the  first, — His  working 
in  the  usual  order  which  we  see,  but  always  as  free 
to  do  otherwise,  even  in  vegetable  life,  as  when 
Aaron's  rod  budded,  or  in  animal,  as  when  that  rod 
became  a  serpent. 

It  is  related  that  after  the  sixth  day  of  Creation, 
God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  His  work 
which  He  had  made.  All  reflection  shows  that  this 
must  be  a  sublime  mystery.  Some  venture  to  say 
that  it  must  mean  that  He,  having  constructed  the 
universe  as  a  machine,  and  set  it  in  motion,  withdrew 
from  any  power  or  interference  about  it  (as  some  say, 
except  upon  rare  and  extraordinary  occasions).  But 
we  can  think  this  only  by  so  mistaking  the  Almighty 
power  as  to  suppose  that  it  needs  intervals  of  rest 
and  refreshment;  or  by  fancying  that  because  we 
cannot  give  any  other  explanation  we  are  compelled 
to  take  up  this  semblance  of  one. 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE — OLD    TESTAMENT.  81 

This  is  just  as  true  of  the  explanation  that  God 
ceased  then  to  give  existence,  and  afterward  only 
"preserved  "  and  "  upheld  "  it ;  that  is,  if  by  this  it 
is  meant,  as  seems  to  be  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
say  it,  to  exclude  Him  from  the  exercise  of  as  much 
power  as  before,  so  relieving  Him  from  exhausting 
all  His  force,  and  giving  opportunity  by  repose  to 
regain  what  was  consumed  ;  or  as  if  the  created 
universe  were  a  machine  of  which  He  is  the  great 
balance-wheel  or  the  engineer. 

Holy  Writ  does  not  say  in  terms,  or  in  expressions 
any  way  approaching  it,  that  God  had  made  a  mechan- 
ical universe  which  He  left  to  its  'Maws."  It  does 
say  that  He  "  rested,"  which  plainly  does  not  mean 
such  rest  as  we  need  and  take  after  exertion.  "He 
fainteth  not  neither  is  weary."  Then  let  us  "rest" 
upon  the  sublime  mystery  of  the  words  with  patient 
and  silent  reverence.  Or  if  any  studious  conjecture 
of  their  meaning  be  made,  let  it  rather  be  this  :  that 
from  thenceforth  He  made  no  new  forms  of  being, 
but  repeated  in  order  and  series  those  first  created. 

Certainly,  so  far  from  this  meaning  a  mechanical, 
invariable  "  reign  of  law,"  we  find  forthwith  upon 
this  rest,  certain  other  things  done  which  cannot  but 
be  thought  outside  of  such  laws,  and  as  done  for  a 
special  occasion  by  the  direct  will  of  the  Supreme 
Lord.  Of  these  are  the  placing  man  in  Eden, 
which  had  been  expressly  prepared  for  him,  the 
setting  within  it  of  the  two  mystical  trees,  the  direct 
speech  of  God  to  man,  especially  in  regard  to  his  use 
of  knowledge,  and  the  temptation  through   the  ser- 


82     THE  «EIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "  THE  KEIGN  OP  LAW." 

pent.  All  these  are  related  in  the  most  literal  and 
natural  way  without  any  suggestion  of  "laws'^ 
which  are  "  suspended,"  or  of  any  other  "  laws  " 
brought  into  notice,  as  the  fashion  of  argument  is 
rather  now,  or,  we  may  add,  of  any  such  "  laws  "  as 
existing  at  all. 

The  same  method  is  used  in  relating  the  fall  of 
man,  God's  declaration  to  him  of  his  change  of  life 
as  regards  labor,  suffering  and  death,  and  his  expul- 
sion from  Eden.  Some  will  refuse  all  force  to  this  by 
saying  that  all  the  story  of  Paradise  and  the  Fall  is 
but  a  fable  or  allegory.  Their  proof  of  this  is  merely 
to  deride  any  one  who  takes  it  for  history.  But 
derision  is  not  reason.  It  can  be  as  easily  used 
against  what  is  most  true  and  sacred  as  against 
bigoted  credulity.  Wise  faith  can  no  more  reject 
these  incidents  from  literal  history  than  it  can  any- 
thing else  supernatural  in  the  Word  of  God. 

In  the  same  way  is  the  history  of  man  brought 
down  to  the  days  of  Noah.  The  tragic  affair  of  the 
two  oldest  sons  of  Adam  is  related  with  much  which 
God  said  to  Cain.  Then  Enoch  does  7iot  die  as  is 
"appointed  to  all  men  ";  and  yet  this  is  not  told  as 
our  philosophers,  who  know  of  a  "  reign  of  law," 
would  relate  it  now. 

Then  comes  a  great  miracle  of  God.  It  is  quite 
against  the  imagined  "reign  of  law"  that  this  is 
foretold  to  one  man.  God  says  to  him  that  He  is 
displeased  with  the  "  cosmos  "  as  He  has  maintained 
it  now  for  the  twelve  longest  generations  of  men,  on 
account  of  the  wickedness  of  this  master-creature 


HOLT  feCRIPTDRE  —  OLD  TESTAMENT.  83 

Avhich  He  had  made  in  His  own  image.  For  this  He 
will,  after  a  while,  by  a  flood  of  waters,  suddenly 
destroy  almost  all  of  them,  and  of  the  other  living 
creatures.  So  at  the  time  appointed  the  usual  order 
of  rain  and  sunshine,  of  land  and  water,  was  entirely'' 
changed  for  many  days,  and  that  of  vegetable  and 
animal  life  interrupted  for  a  w^hole  year. 

It  w^ould  make  but  little  difference  in  the  force  of 
this  fact  as  bearing  upon  the  question  before  us,  even 
if  we  were  to  concede  that  this  Flood  did  not  cover 
all  the  globe,  but  only  that  fiftieth  j)art  of  it  perhaps 
then  known  to  mankind.  When  the  Flood  ceased 
and  the  habitable  earth  reappeared,  the  few  survivors 
of  mankind  offered  worship  to  the  Holy  and 
Almighty  God.  And  then,  in  gracious  notice  of 
this,  "  The  Lord  said  in  His  heart  ....  while  the 
earth  remaineth,  seed-time  and  harvest,  cold  and 
heat,  summer  and  winter,  day  and  night  shall  not 
cease."* 

Certainly  this  is  more  like  a  mention  of  the  sup- 
posed "  reign  of  law  "  than  anything  else  so  far  in 
Scripture.  Yet  upon  candid  study  it  really  forbids 
that  notion.  God  did  not  say  this  at  the  Creation, 
or  as  any  way  relating  to  it.  It  is  separated  from 
that  event  b}'  the  vast  lapse  of  sixteen  centuries, 
during  which  He  appears  to  us  as  "  upholding  (and 
doing)  all  things  by  the  (mere)  word  of  His  power" 
and  will.  Nothing  in  the  words  suggests  His  "  im- 
posing a  law  upon  Himself."  All  declare  His  merci- 
ful and  loving  purpose  and  promise  to  a  man  who 

*  Gen.  viii.  21,  22. 


84  THE   liEIGN   OF  GOD   NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

adored  Him.  And  so  it  is  given  as  His  prophecy 
and  covenant  to  us  all  of  mankind.  As  between  the 
physical  and  the  spiritual,  the  natural  and  the  super- 
natural, that  great  saying  of  God  belongs  altogether 
with  the  latter. 

Another  great  incident  of  these  events  is  to  the 
same  effect.  God  spoke  then  to  mankind  some 
other  words  of  blessing  and  promise  ;  of  a  "  covenant 
that  the  waters  should  no  more  become  a  flood  to 
destroy  all  flesh,"  and  that  something  should  there- 
after, at  times,  appear  in  the  clouds  as  a  '^  token  "  of 
this  covenant.*  All  of  these  words  are  worthy  of 
deep  study,  while  they  are,  indeed,  too  great  for  our 
comprehension.  This,  however,  is  true  of  all  the 
greatest  truth  which  we  receive  directly  from  God  ; 
and  so,  if  we  demand  as  a  condition  of  belief  such 
entire  comprehension,  we  never  shall  believe  ;  and  so 
would  remain  ignorant  in  spite  of  the  greatest  good- 
ness of  God  in  instructing  us. 

But  giving  faith  and  thought  to  what  God  has 
told  us  of  the  bright  vision  of  the  rainbow  as  we 
often  behold  it  in  the  sky,  it  is  plain  that  only  after 
the  flood  did  this  appear  to  the  sight  of  man.  JSTow 
nothing  could  be  more  unlike  the  entire  notion  of 
the  "reign  of  law  "  than  this.  It  discloses  a  Person 
clothed  with  "  all  power,"  who,  after  day  and  night 
have  followed  one  another  in  the  eyes  of  man  for 
near  6000  times,  and  when  the  longest  living  genera- 
tions  of  them  that   ever  w^ere  have  come  and  gone 

*Gen.  X.  1-17.— Even  the  writer  of  the  Article  "Noah,"  iu  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary,  which  is  quite  given  to  the  rationalistic,  scientific  method, 
admits  that  the  Divine  history  plainly  affirms  that  the  rainbow  first 
appeared  after  the  Flood. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TKSTAMENT.  85 

again  and  again,  begins  before  all  mankind  an 
entirely  new  phenomenon  to  take  place  frequently 
until  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  for  a  purely 
spiritual  purpose. 

The  idea  of  a  "  reign  of  law,"  on  the  contrary, 
assumes  that  however  this  order  of  "Nature"  first 
began,  or  whether  or  not  it  ever  had  a  beginning, 
all  has  proceeded  always  without  variation.  Even 
those  who,  while  allowing  this  in  general,  have  no 
doubt  of  the  miracles  related  in  our  Holy  Scriptures, 
allow  them  to  be  but  single  and  infrequent  varia- 
tions from  an  exact  mechanism  which  began  before 
man  inhabited  the  world.  But  here  is  a  new  general 
fact  added  to  the  usual  order  at  least  1600  years 
after  that  began.  Eemember  that  those  very 
reasonings  of  our  *'  science  "  from  a  "  reign  of  law  " 
which  have  been  the  most  generally  accepted  by 
Christians,  have  their  whole  force  in  the  assumption 
that  what  we  observe  now  in  rocks  or  seas  or  stars 
can  be  traced  back  according  to  forces  and  processes 
now  at  work,  so  that  we  can  tell  with  certainty  that 
the  earth  existed  a  vast  while  before  history,  say 
100,000  years,  and  can  tell  also  what  was  doing  upon 
it  in  the  intervening  time.  Whatever  suggests  that 
anything  in  "]N"ature  "  began  only  by  the  will  of  God 
since  the  race  of  man  has  lived,  shakes  all  that 
science.  So  it  is  safe  to  say  that  not  only  does  noth- 
ing so  far  in  the  Book  of  Grenesis  tell  us  of  a  "  reign 
of  law,"  but  that  this  passage  of  the  tenth  chapter  as 
well  as  that  in  the  eighth  chapter  is  plainly  against  it. 

The  Divine  history  continues  in  the  same  way 
8 


86  THE   RETGN   OF    GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF  LAW." 

down  through  the  times  of  the  patriarchs  for  eight 
centurief^  more.  In  this  we  have  more  than  a  hun- 
dred different  mentions  of  miracles,  without  one  sug- 
gestion of  their  being  *'  interruptions  of  laws  of 
Nature/'  or  any  of  the  like  exj)ressions  with  which 
all  modern  writings  are  filled.  We  have  about  as 
many  mentions  of  natural  events  as  being  simply 
what  was  done  at  the  time  by  God,  and  without  a 
word  of  their  being  according  to  any  such  "  law." 
The  same  is  true  of  the  several  accounts  in  that  his- 
tory, of  things  being  done  by  Him,  whether  natural 
or  supernatural,  in  favorable  answer  to  the  prayers 
of  men.  But  while  in  all  this  Holy  Writ  so  far  there 
is  nothing  said  of  a  "  reign  of  law,"  there  are  such 
sayings  as  these :  (to  one  doubting  the  promise  of 
a  gracious  miracle)  "  Is  anything  too  hard  for  the 
Lord?  " — [Gren.  xviii.  14.]  (A  holy  patriarch  by  in- 
spiration of  Grod  prophesying  blessings  to  his  son) 
"  Therefore,  God  give  thee  of  the  dew  of  heaven  and 
of  the  fatness  of  the  earth,  and  plenty  of  corn  and 
wine." — [Gen.  xxvii.  28.]  (Another  patriarch  declar- 
ing the  gracious  things  which  God  had  done,  even  by 
means  of  man's  evil  deeds)  "  And  God  sent  me 
before  you  to  preserve  you  a  posterity  in  the  earth 
and  to  save  you  by  a  great  deliverance.  So  now  it 
was  not  you  that  sent  me  hither,  but  God." — [Gen. 
xlv.  7,  8.]" 

The  history  of  the  days  of  Moses  and  Joshua 
which  succeed  is  crowded  with  miracles  and  provi- 
dences; as  also  with  mentions  of  the  Creation,  and  of 
God's  granting  blessings,  both  temporal  and  spiritual, 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  87 

in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  men.  In  all  this  too 
there  is  nothing  said,  even  by  way  of  most  remote 
allusion,  of  any  "  laws  of  Nature."  There  is  this 
silence  in  a  thousand  such  sentences,  when,  if  that  be 
the  truth  of  God,  true  of  Him  in  ''  His  works,"  one 
cannot  conceive  why  it  should  not  be  spoken  of  in 
explanation  of  a  providence,  in  enhancement  of  a 
miracle,  in  true  account  of  Creation,  in  assistance  of 
embarrassed  faith,  in  any  natural  statement  of  these 
great  events.  It  would  be  so  related  if  one  of  those 
who  now  believe  in  a  "  reign  of  law "  were  the 
original  historian. 

There  is  also  in  the  narrative  a  natural  mingling 
of  the  normal  with  the  supernatural,  as  if  the  one 
were  as  easy  for  the  Great  Worker  as  the  other,  both 
alike  His  immediate  will,  and  equally  easy  of  belief 
to  one  who  believed  in  God.  This  accords  exactly 
with  the  idea  of  all  events  since,  being  by  God's 
direct  will  as  much  as  the  original  Creation  ;  but  it 
has  no  agreement  with  the  notion  of  "  natural  law." 

It  is  also  related  in  this  history  that  God  declared 
His  name  to  be  I  AM.  This  is  awfully  sublime  and 
full  of  deep  thought  for  all  the  sons  of  men.  One 
such  true  thought  is  that  there  is  no  past  or  future 
with  Him ;  that  He  knows  and  does  all  things  as  if 
in  the  same  moment  of  time.  Then  no  man  can  ever, 
without  great  folly,  say  that  He  is  under  limits  of 
power,  such  as  would  compel  us  to  extend  great  con- 
structions over  long  ages  ;  or  can  aflSrm  that  the 
mighty  sayings  in  which  He  tells  us  of  "  stormy 
winds  "  and  all  other  things  in  this  Creation  "  fulfill- 


88  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OP   LAW." 

ingHis  word,''  must  be  hyperbolical  figures  of  speech, 
because  the  greatest  thing  for  a  man  to  do  would  be  to 
invent  an  automatic  machine  for  such  purposes,  and 
leave  it  to  its  motion  rather  than  put  forth  will  upon 
each  occasion.  It  also  reminds  us  that  for  Him  to  wish 
anything,  and  that  thing  to  take  place,  are  identical. 

This  great  idea  descending  to  us  from  Heaven 
itself  thus  speaks  in  the  thousand  sentences  of 
the  histor}^  of  Israel  down  to  the  age  of  David — 
sentences  in  which  God  says  to  that  people:  "If 
you  walk  in  m}^  statutes,  etc.,  then  I  will  give  you  rain 
in  due  season,"  etc. — [Lev.  xxvi.  4]  ;  and  such  replies 
as  this  to  any  one  who  doubts  relief  which  He 
promises  in  a  great  extremity  :  "  Is  the  Lord's  hand 
waxed  short?  Thou  shalt  see  now  whether  my 
word  shall  come  to  pass  unto  thee  or  not." — [Numb, 
xi.  23.] 

Now  begins  the  most  intellectual  age  of  Israel.  For 
"sve  have  henceforth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  not  only 
the  history  continued,  but  also  a  series  of  authors  and 
writings,  beginning  with  the  great  King  David  and 
his  son,  which  are  chiefly,  as  regards  their  human 
composition,  poetical  and  eloquent.  But  before  we 
examine  these  poetical  Scriptures,  we  may  well  jDro- 
ceed  with  the  sacred  history  to  the  end  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  all  this  too  we  find  miracle  and 
providence  frequently  narrated  or  alluded  to  with 
the  same  sublime  naturalness  ;  but  not  one  word  of 
"  laws  of  Nature,"  or  anything  equivalent  to  that 
idea. 

The   first  of  the  poetical   books  is  thiit  of  Job, 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE — OLD  TESTAMENT.  89 

which  carries  us  again  far  back  into  the  patriarchal 
times.  This  is  true  not  only  of  its  scene  of  narrative, 
but  of  its  probable  author.  Both  action  and  author 
appear  to  be  at  least  as  old  as  the  days  of  Moses.* 
The  language  is  a  most  wonderful  combination  of 
exquisite  simplicity  and  sublime  imagination.  After 
reading  more  than  half  through  this  book  and  find- 
ing much  that  is  powerfully  said  about  the  imme- 
diate will  of  Grod  in  all  things,  as  in  the  other  Scrip- 
tures, we  find  almost  the  first  passages  of  Scripture 
which  have  been  cited  by  Christian  writers  in 
favor  of  the  notion  of  "  laws  of  Nature." 

The  first  is  this,  which  I  give  at  length  for  its  full 
meaning  and  connection,  the  precise  words  which 
have  been  cited  by  some  authors  as  just  mentioned 
being  enclosed  in  brackets.  "  Whence  then  cometh 
wisdom,  and  where  is  the  place  of  understanding? 

(jod  understandeth  the  way  thereof,  and  He 

knoweth  the  place  thereof  For  He  looketh  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth  and  seeth  under  the  whole  heaven  : 
[to  make  the  weight  for  the  winds,  and  He  weigheth 
the  waters  by  measure.  When  he  made  a  decree  for 
the  rain  and  a  way  for  the  lightning  of  thunder. 
Then  did  He  see  it  and  declare  it ;  He  prepared  it, 
yea,  and  searched  it  out.  And  unto  7nan  He  said, 
Behold  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  that  is  wisdom;  and  to 
depart  from  evil,  that  is  understanding."] — [xxviii. 
20-28.] 

The  phrase  in  the  twenty-sixth  verse,  "a  decree 
for   the   rain,"    is   assumed   to    mean  that  God  has 

*  Their  being  of  a  later  date  would  not  alter  their  main  effect  in  this 
enquirj. 


90  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

"  subjected  Himself"  to  supposed  "laws  of  Nature." 
To  me  it  seems  simply  one  of  the  great  figures  of 
this  God-inspired  poet,  in  which  he  compares  the  will 
of  God  in  Creation  and  in  the  movements  of  all 
things,  to  the  edicts  or  decrees  of  a  prince.  Were 
the  language  literal,  a  decree  need  not  mean,  and 
usually  did  not  mean,  to  the  men  of  the  East  an 
enduring  general  law  to  subjects,  but  only  the  will 
of  a  sovereign  declared  about  some  one  person  or 
for  some  single  transaction.*  Thus,  here  it  would 
literally  mean  each  single  act  of  God's  will  in  Provi- 
dence. The  entire  passage  as  quoted  above,  when 
read  with  care,  is  no  proof  of  a  "  reign  of  law,"  and 
surely  does  not  affirm  any  such  law  imposed  upon 
Himself  by  the  Great  King.  It  agrees  best,  as  all 
this  Book  of  Job  does,  in  some  two  hundred  and 
fifty  other  passages  which  speak  of  Providence, 
Creation  and  miracles,  with  the  idea  that  God  does 
all  things  always  by  His  immediate  will,  and  not  by 
an  interposed  machinery  of  "  forces,"  or  "  laws." 
Does  not  that  divine  argument  actually  intend  to  tell 
men  that  it  is  only  folly  in  them  to  claim  a  know- 
ledge of  how  ^^God  understandeth  "  the  winds  and 
lightnings  ?  concluding  so  plainly,  "  Unto  man  He 
said,  Behold  the  fear  of  the  Lord  that  is  wisdom  " 
for  them. 

This  applies  in  like  manner  to  other  passages 
sometimes  cited  as  telling  of  "  laws  of  Nature,"  as, 
"Dost  thou  know  the  balancing  of  the  clouds  [Job 
xxxvii.  16],  and  brake  up  for  it  (the  sea)  my  decreed 

*  Fro  r«  nata. 


HOLY  eCRTPTURE  —  OLD  TESTAMENT.  91 

place,  (or,  as  in  the  margin  of  A,V.,  "  established  my 
decree  upon  it")  and  set  bars  and  doors  and  said, 
Hitherto  shalt  thou  come  and  no  further,  and  here 
shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed  ?  Hast  thou  com- 
manded the  morning  since  thy  days  ?  .  .  .  Knowest 
thou  the  ordinances  of  heaven  ?  "  [xxxviii.  10, 12,  33.] 

These  few  most  splendid  and  sublime  imaginations 
of  devout  poetry  appear  in  the  midst  of  a  long  pro- 
cession of  beautiful  verses  which  all  speak  of  God  as 
doing  all  things  by  His  immediate  will  and  work. 
Thus,  '^  He  maketh  small  the  drops  of  water,  etc." 
[xxxvi.  27].  "  By  the  breath  of  God  frost  is  given  " 
[xxxvii.  10],  &c.,  &c.  The  general  purpose  of  it  all 
is  plainly  to  reprove  the  presumption  of  mankind  ; 
as  e.  g.  what  is  said  as  quoted  above,  of  "  the  ordi- 
nances of  heaven,"  is  immediately  followed  by  such 
questions  to  us  as  this  :  "  Canst  thou  send  lightnings 
that  they  may  go  and  say  unto  thee,  Here  we  are  ?" 
[xxxvii.  35.]  Thus,  would  not  God  speak  to  man  if 
He  were  only  like  him — even  on  ever  so  much 
greater  a  scale  —  a  contriver  and  constructor  of 
mechanism. 

We  may  pause  here  and  reflect  that  we  have  now 
gone  down  about  4000  years  of  divine  history,  and 
searched  nearly  half  through  the  Book  of  God,  yet 
found  nothing  either  in  the  story  of  Creation  or  the 
chronicles  of  Providence  and  miracles  for  that  vast 
period  in  support  of  the  idea  of  "  laws  of  Nature," 
except  the  verbal  resemblance  of  two  words,  "de- 
crees," "  ordinances  ";  and  these  used  in  a  figurative 
way  in  very  splendid  poetry,  which   of  all  sorts  of 


93    THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  SOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW. 

writing  is  the  farthest  removed  from  exactness  of 
expression. 

Should  any  one  account  for  this  general  silence  of 
God's  Word  about  such  "laws,  etc.,"  upon  the 
ground  that  those  were  very  ignorant  ages  as  com- 
pared with  ours;  and  that  since 

"  Nature  and  Nature's  laws  lay  hid  in  night," 

the  Divine  compassion  would  not  obscure  the  spir- 
itual truth  which  was  to  be  revealed,  by  mention  or 
allusion  to  the  physical  truth";  let  him  candidly 
observe  a  fact  which  our  present  study  has  just 
brought  before  us.  It  is  in  the  Book  of  Job,  in  the 
least  '*  scientific"  age,  and  among  the  least  scientific 
race  of  men,  that  we  have  but  just  now  found  the 
words  "  decrees  "  and  "ordinances  "  that  are  cited  as 
such  mention.  Even  in  this  view,  which  is  the  more 
probable,  that  those  words  are  mere  figures  of 
speech  about  what  God  does,  or  that  they  tell  man- 
kind of  invariable  "laws  of  Nature  "  established  by 
Him? 

Then,  too,  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  mostly  com- 
posed some  600  years  later,  with  all  its  glorious  im- 
aginations, we  find  only  one  or  two  phrases  upon 
which  the  same  argument  has  been  attempted. 
Thus,  "  The  day  is  Thine  ;  the  night  also  is  Thine. 
Thou  hast  prepared  the  light  and  the  sun.  Thou 
hast  set  all  the  borders  of  the  earth.  Thou  hast 
made  summer  and  winter "  [Ixxiv.  16,  17].  "  He 
hath  made  a  decree  which  shall  not  pass  "  [cxlvii. 
8].     This,  too,  sets  forth  with  poetic  beauty  the  con- 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


tinual  power  of  God.  As  for  any  *' reign  of  law,"  it 
rather  denies,  and  certainly  does  not  state  that. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Psalms  are  throughout  and 
everywhere  ablaze  v/ith  the  glory  of  this  vision  of 
the  immediate  will  of  God  in  all  things  alike, 
whether  in  Creation,  miracle  or  Providence.  They 
summon  every  form  of  beauty  to  express  this,  per- 
sonifying and  calling  upon  every  creature  to  join  in 
the  chorus  of  worship.  More  than  a  thousand  such 
passages  could  be  cited.  These  are  but  specimens  of 
them  all. 

"  This  poor  man  cried  and  the  Lord  heard  him,  and 
delivered  him  out  of  all  his  distress  "  [xxxiv.  6].  "O 
Lord,  Thou  prcservest  man  and  beast  "  [xxxvi.  6]. 
"  These  wait  all  upon  Thee  that  Thou  mayest  give 
them  their  meat  in  due  season.  That  Thou  givest 
them  they  gather.  Thou  opcnest  Thy  hand  ;  they 
are  filled  with  good.  Thou  hidest  Thy  face,  they  are 
troubled.  Thou  takest  away  their  breath  ;  they  die 
and  return  to  their  dust.  Thou  sondest  forth  Thy 
spirit,  they  are  created  ;  and  Thou  renewest  the  face 
of  the  earth  "  [civ.  27-30].  Observe  of  this  last  pass- 
age, that  all  the  things  which  we  commonly  speak  of 
as  the  course  of  Nature  are  enumerated  as  the  imme- 
diate acts  of  God  ;  the  support  of  all  animal  life,  the 
withdrawal  of  that  life,  and  the  succession  of  it  in 
others  of  the  same  kind. 

So  also,  when  by  a  sublime  figure  of  speech  all  the 
things  which  God  has  made  are  called  upon  to  join 
with  us  in  singing  His  praise  ;  even  "  dragons  and  all 
deeps ;  fire  and  hail,  snow  and  vapor,  stormy  wind 


94  THE   llEIGN    OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   KEIGN   OF   LAW. 


fulfilling  His  word,"  no  such  things  are  supposed 
and  summoned  as  "  forces  of  Nature."  Do  you  reply 
that  this  would  have  been  unmeaning  to  the  men 
then  living  for  lack  of  the  science  which  we  now 
have  ?  But  why  is  it  not  there  for  these  wiser  gene- 
rations of  ours?  Granted  that  the  Word  of  God 
being  meant  to  teach  spiritual,  and  not  physical^ 
truth,  might  speak  only  of  the  former.  Yet  none  the 
less  if  it  did  illustrate  the  former  by  the  latter,  He^ 
to  whom  all  truth  is  always  known,  would  teach  the 
spiritual  by  the  natural  truth,  and  not  by  repeating 
to  men  their  superstitious  ignorance. 

The  writings  of  Solomon,  which  follow  next  in 
Holy  Writ,  tell  us  nothing  of  the  "  reign  of  law." 
Yet  he  w^as  specially  an  observer  of  natural  life,  and 
given  to  philosophic  reflection.  These  writings  con- 
tain many  mentions  of  Creation  and  Providence,  but 
none  of  miracles.  Some  who  maintain  the  "  reign  of 
law  "  have  cited  for  their  purposes  what  is  said  in 
the  III.  and  YIII.  Chapters  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
concerning  "  ivisdom."  It  may  be  that  if  this  notion 
were  otherwise  and  already  proved,  it  w^ould  be  a. 
fair  conjecture  that  those  sublime  and  mystical 
words  intended  it.  But  that  they  are  any  proof  of 
it,  or  Avould  ever  seem  so,  except  by  prepossession 
or  prejudice  in  its  behalf  on  the  part  of  some  who- 
feel  bound  to  secure  for  it  some  authority  in  Holy 
Scripture,  seems  to  me  most  unlikely.  Let  them 
speak  for  themselves  at  length. 

"  The  Lord   by   wisdom  hath  founded  the  earth,, 
by  understanding  hath  He  established  the  heavens. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  95 

By  His  knowledge  the  depths  are  broken  up,  and 
the  clouds  drop  down  the  dew  "  [Prov.  iii.  19,  20]. 
"The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  His 
way  before  His  works  of  old.  I  was  set  up  from 
everlasting,  from  the  beginning;  or  ever  the  earth 
was.  When  there  were  no  depths  I  was  brought 
forth  ;  when  there  were  no  fountains  abounding  with 
water.  Before  the  mountains  were  settled,  before 
the  hills  were  brought  forth.  While  as  yet  He  had 
not  made  the  earth,  nor  the  fields,  nor  the  highest 
part  of  the  dust  of  the  world.  When  He  prepared 
the  heavens  I  was  there ;  when  He  set  a  compass 
upon  the  face  of  the  depth  ;  when  He  established 
the  clouds  above  ;  when  He  strengthened  the  foun- 
tains of  the  deep;  w^hen  He  gave  to  the  sea  His 
decree  that  the  waters  should  not  pass  His  command- 
ment; when  He  appointed  the  foundations  of  the 
earth — then  I  was  by  Him  as  one  brought  up  with 
Him,  and  I  was  daily  His  delight,  rejoicing  always 
before  Him;  rejoicing  in  the  habitable  part  of  His 
earth,  and  my  delights  were  with  the  sons  of  men." 
[viii.  22-31.] 

These  words  do  not  directly  speak  of  a  '*  reign  of 
law."  If  any  such  force  in  them  is  claimed  from  the 
use  of  the  terms  "decree"  and  "commandment," 
this  has  been  already  answered  in  the  comment  upon 
the  sentence  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  which  resembles 
this.  And  so  it  would  be  a  very  fanciful  assumption 
for  any  one  to  insist  that  to  say  that  '^wisdom  "  was 
with  God  in  Creation  is  the  same  as  to  say  directly 
that  He  in  the  beginning  set   up  invariable  "  law^s 


96  THE   ]{EIGN    OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   IIRIGN  OF  LAW." 

of  nature."  We  may  leave  it  to  any  plain  and  un- 
prejudiced man  whether  we  are  not  right  in  saying, 
that  whatever  it  may  say,  it  does  not  say  that. 

Can  we  not,  in  all  these  mighty  and  mystical  sen- 
tences, hear  simply  that  the  wisdom  of  God  is 
greater  and  older  than  the  stars?  Must  men  have 
the  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  "  before  these  other 
words  have  any  meaning  to  them  :  "  O  Lord,  how 
manifold  are  Thy  works,  in  wisdom  hast  Thou  made 
them  all?"  [Ps.  civ.  24.]  Had  all  those  sayings  no 
sense  to  the  fifty  generations  of  men  who  read  them 
before  that  notion  was  thought  of?  Have  they  none 
now  to  the  vast  number  of  honest  Christians  who 
like  me  believe  them  without  that  ?  May  we  not 
oven  have  a  greater  adoring  admiration  for  that 
wisdom  in  immediate  will  and  power? 

If  devout  men  had  never  been  able  to  find  meaning 
in  the  words,  and  had  waited  in  despair  of  it  until 
modern  science  had  offered  this  interpretation,  we 
might,  perhaps,  allow  it  for  lack  of  any  other.  But 
beside  the  sublime  praise  of  Him  whose  "  thoughts 
are  very  deep,"  which  devout  readers  have  found  in 
them  from  the  first,  we  have  an  application  of  them 
made  by  the  great  Church  writers  of  St.  Athanasius' 
age.  This  has  also  seemed  to  speak,  with  the  very 
voice  of  all  the  Church  ever  since,  when  it  declares 
its  belief  that  Our  Lord  was  "  begotten  before  all 
worlds."  No  orthodox  Christian  can  lightly  assume 
the  "reign  of  law  "  as  the  reasonable  application  and 
dismiss  this  as  the  fanciful,  when  he  has  once  noticed 
how  to  the  first  words,  "  The  Lord  possessed   me  in 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  97 

the  beginning ";  these  words  respond  from  the 
Gospel :  ''  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  ;  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God." 

Nevertheless,  let  us  further  enquire  whether  this 
account  of  God's  "  wisdom  "  in  the  beginning,  does, 
if  not  in  terms,  yet  in  substance  and  by  fair  reason- 
ing, teach  us  of  a  "  reign  of  law."  The  Book  of 
Proverbs  is  an  instruction  to  us,  not  in  physical 
science,  but  in  morals  and  religion.  With  this  pur- 
pose in  all  parts,  and  often  it  speaks  of  "  wisdom," 
and  personifies  it  as  the  true  principle  of  men  in  their 
conduct  toward  God  and  their  fellows.  It  repeats 
that  great  saying  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  that  "  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  (reverent  and  obedient  love  of 
Him),  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom."  [Ps.  ex.  10. — Prov. 
ix.  10].  It  tells  the  same  great  truth  again  in  nearl}^ 
the  same  terms  as  do  other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  with  such  related  sayings  as  that,  "  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  to  hate  evil,"  &c. 

Thus,  this  very  passage,  fairly  read  in  its  connection, 
tells  us  of  the  great  wisdom  of  God,  as  a  reason  why 
we  should  be  Avise  in  true  religion  and  all  goodness. 
Can  we  then  with  reason  think  that  the  Divine 
wisdom  means  the  intellectual  contrivance  of  the 
universe  and  the  mechanical  skill  of  setting  it  in 
motion,  like  a  vast  machine,  as  we  sometimes  call 
human  inventors  wise  ? 

Finally,  to  do  justice  to  both  sides  of  this  question, 

let   us   paraphrase   and   amplify,   in   that   supposed 

sense,  the  words  which  are  claimed  as  involving  the 

idea  of  a  "  reign  of  law."     Thus:  "A  wisdom  which 

9 


98  THE  REIGN   OP   GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OP  LAW." 

was  with  God  in  Creation  must  mean  that  He  econo- 
mized force  and  time  by  such  arrangements  of  all 
matter  (and  spirit,  too,  for  that  matter),  as  that  He 
might  sjiare  His  continual  attention  and  exertion, 
and  might  leave  this  creation  to  its  automatic  motion. 
This  Avould  be  the  highest  achievement  of  a  man  in 
the  use  of  force  and  motion,  and  so  it  must  be  *  the 
wisdom  of  God.'  " 

That  is  really  the  argument.  This  is  what  the 
words  mean,  if  in  them  God  sjjeaks  to  us  of  a  "reign 
of  law."  What  must  we  judge  when  ingenious  men 
can  find  in  Holy  Scripture  no  better  proof  of  their 
belief  than  such  far-fetched  interpretations  as  that? 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  one  thing  said  to  all  man- 
kind in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  God  with  much  fre- 
quency, solemnity  and  plainness  of  speech,  namely,  that 
pride  of  intelligence  is  one  of  their  greatest  dangers 
and  infirmities.  "  The  Law  and  the  -Prophets,"  the 
Gospels  and  the  Epistles  join  in  this,  with  only  the 
difi'erence  that  the  New  Testament,  as  the  more  com- 
plete and  spiritual,  is  more  express  in  such  doctrine. 
Surely  that  folly  could  find  no  more  dangerous  ex- 
ercise than  in  reasonings  about  the  works  of  God 
which  are  not  full  of  humility  and  reverence.  And 
thus,  not  to  anticipate  the  commands  of  Our  Lord  to 
be  as  humble  as  little  children,  and  the  warnings  of 
His  Apostles  against  "  man's  wisdom,"  this  divine 
'*  wisdom  of  Solomon,"  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes 
as  well  as  that  of  Proverbs,  so  far  from  encouraging 
us  to  put  forth  theories  of  what  God  must  have  done 
in  the  beginning,  formed  from  our  ambitious  studies, 
teaches  us  to  learn  such  things  only  from  His  mouth. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  99 

The  very  j^assage  we  have  been  examining  is 
really  a  warning  against  such  conceit.  It  tells  ns  of 
the  great  and  unapproachable  glory  of  God  in 
wisdom  ;  and  then  that,  for  us  "  the  fear  of  the  Lord 
is  the  beginning  of  wisdom."  Beyond  doubt  to  me 
this  means  that,  instead  of  fancj^ing  that  by  intel- 
lectual research  we  shall  come  to  know  much  of 
what  He  has  done  and  is  doing,  it  is  reverence, 
humility  and  obedient  love  for  Him  that  must  pre- 
cede and  accompany  all  such  true  acquirements. 
How  well  we  all  know  that  the  science  which  insists 
upon  a  reign  of  law  does  not  always  begin  or  proceed 
with  reverent  piety.  Some  of  its  most  successful 
votaries,  as  they  advanced  in  and  became  absorbed 
in  it,  have  receded  from  all  religion.  Theirs,  then, 
was  not  the  wisdom  which  Solomon  commended  in 
men,  nor  their  favorite  notion  of  "  Mature  "  that 
which  he,  at  the  same  time,  was  revealing  to  us  as 
the  wisdom  of  God. 

On  the  contrary,  those  inspired  writings  of  his 
even  agree  with  the  rest  of  Holy  Scripture  in  fre- 
quent mentions  of  all  events  as  the  immediate  work 
of  God.  For  example :  "  By  humility  and  the  fear 
of  the  Lord  are  riches  and  honor  and  life"  [Prov. 
xxii.  14].  "  A  Inan  to  whom  God  hath  given  riches, 
wealth  and  honor,"  &c.   [Eccl.  vi.  2.] 

Examining  next  the  Prophets,  numbering  fourteen 
different  writers,  and  including  more  than  a  fourth 
part  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  them  full  of  sublime 
mentions  of  Creation,  miracles  and  Providence.  Yet 
among  two  thousand  such  passages  noted  there  are 


100  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

only  some  six  which  have  ever  been  cited  as  suggesting 
a  **  reign  of  law."  Even  then  it  is  only  by  that  un- 
reasonable process  of  seizing  upon  a  slight  verbal  re- 
semblance, and  imagining  in  splendid  figures  of 
speech  something  to  be  declared  which  no  one 
would  ever  find  there  unless  he  were  in  search  of 
support  of  a  notion  elsewhere  derived.  Thus  they 
correspond  to  those  brought  forward  by  some  in 
support  of  the  same  notion,  from  the  other  poetical 
books.  The  same  observations  apply  to  them  and 
need  not  be  repeated. 

They  are  as  follows :  "  Fear  ye  not  Me  ?  saith  the 
Lord.  Will  ye  not  tremble  at  my  presence,  which 
have  placed  the  sand  for  the  bound  of  the  sea  by  a 
perpetual  decree  that  it  cannot  pass  it  ?  And  though 
the  waves  thereof  toss  themselves,  yet  can  they  not 
prevail  ;  though  they  roar,  yet  can  they  not  pass 
over  it "  [Jer.  v.  22].  "  Yea  the  stork  in  the 
heaven  knoweth  her  appointed  times ;  and  the  turtle 
and  the  crane  and  the  swallow  observe  the  time  of 
their  coming ;  but  my  people  know  not  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Lord  "  [Jer.  viii.  7].  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  which  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light  by  day,  and 
the  ordinances  of  the  moon  and  of  the  stars  for  a 
light  by  night ;  which  divideth  the  sea  when  the 
waves  thereof  roar,  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  His 
name.  If  these  ordinances  depart  from  before 
me,  saith  the  Lord,  then  the  seed  of  Israel  also  shall 
cease  from  being  a  nation  before  me  forever  "  [xxxi. 
35,  36].  '*  If  ye  can  break  my  covenant  of  the 
day    and   my   covenant   of    the    night,    that  there 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  OLD  TESTAMENT.  101 

should  not  be  day  and  night  in  their  season,  then 
may  also  my  covenant  be  broken  with  David,  my 
servant,  that  he  should  not  have  a  son  to  reign  upon 
his  throne  "  [Jer.  xxxiii.  20,  21].  "  If  my  covenant 
be  not  with  day  and  night,  and  if  I  have  not  ap- 
pointed the  ordinances  of  heaven  and  earth,  then  will 
I  cast  away  the  seed  of  Jacob,"  &c.  [Ibid.  25,  26]. 

Of  the  first  of  these  passages,  it  is  an  easy  question 
whether  it  is  literal  or  figurative.  If  the  former, 
then  has  the  sea  a  restless  loUl,  prone  to  disobey 
God ;  tossing  its  mane  in  rage  and  roaring  with 
baffled  desire.  But  we  none  of  us  think  that.  We 
justly  see  in  this  a  noble  figure  of  the  supreme  will 
of  God,  in  which  even  the  mighty  ocean  is  repre- 
sented as  a  self-willed,  yet  subjugated  subject,  upon 
whom,  after  such  attempts,  a  perpetual  decree  of  re- 
straint is  imposed.  The  more  careful  our  study  of 
the  words,  the  more  it  will  appear  that  they  suggest 
the  opposite  of  "  natural  law,"  namely,  the  immediate 
power  of  God. 

So  also  in  the  second  passage,  the  migration  of 
birds  is  spoken  of  not  as  some  mechanical  order 
established  at  the  creation,  but  as  if  each  year  they 
heard  the  voice  of  their  Lord  and  obeyed  Him!  This 
is  but  a  figure  of  speech  to  rebuke  the  disobedience 
of  men  who  have  laws  given  them  and  a  will  with 
which  they  can  obey  ?  So  it  is  ;  and  therefore  least 
of  all  is  it  any  proof  of  a  "  reign  of  law."  The  same 
judgment  applies  to  the  other  sayings  about  "  cove- 
nants "  and  "  ordinances  "  of  sun,  moon  and  stars,  or 
of  day  and  night.     The  allusion  of  these  is  naturally 


103  THE  REIGN  OP  QOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

rather  to  the  spiritual  and  supernatural  blessing 
bestowed  upon  mankind  after  the  flood,  than  upon 
what  was  set  up  in  the  beginning.  Anyway  there 
is  nothing  about  "  laws  of  Nature  "  in  them,  but 
those  great  and  gracious  ways  of  God  to  us  alike  in 
"  all  things  visible  and  invisible."  There  is  in  both 
the  same  free  and  instant  power  by  which  **  He 
doeth  according  to  His  will  in  the  armies  of  heaven," 
in  a  usual,  regular  order  of  loving-kindness  to  men. 
And  He  reminds  us  of  these  covenants  and  blessings 
of  things  temporal  to  affirm  other  promises,  even  of 
spiritual  good.  We  have  as  much  right  to  reduce 
these  to  "  natural  law  "  as  the  others. 

But  this  is  not  all  that  we  may  learn  about  this 
question  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Prophets. 
To  confront  these  few  weak  and  far-fetched  attempts 
at  proof  upon  one  side,  we  could  summon  from  them 
thousands  of  sentences  which  reveal  tons  with  direct- 
ness, the  Great  and  Gracious  One  doing  everything 
in  "  Nature  "  as  immediately  as  when  He  said,  "  Let 
there  be  light !  "    These  few  may  represent  them  all. 

"  Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high  and  behold  who  hath 
created  these  things,  that  bringeth  out  their  host  by 
number ;  He  calleth  them  all  by  names  ;  by  the  great- 
ness of  His  might,  for  that  He  is  strong  in  power,  not 
onefaileth.  .  .  .  The  Everlasting  God,  the  Lord,  the 
Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth  fainteth  not,  neither 
is  weary  ;  there  is  no  searching  of  His  understand- 
ing" [Is.  xl.  26,  28,  &c].  (How  exactly  does  this 
agree  with  the  thought  that  all  things  are  and  move 
by  the  present  will  of  God,  and  not  by  forces  which 


HOLT  SCRIPTURE  —  OLD  TESTAMENT.  103 

He  set  up  thousands  of  years  ago  !  How  naturally 
we  can  understand  it  is  a  reproof  of  those  who  think 
that  men  of  our  day  have  searched  the  understanding 
of  God  and  found  that  He  would  "  faint  and  be 
weary  "  with  such  constant  work  ;  and  that  stars 
and  seasons  fail  not,  not  "  for  that  He  is  strong  in 
power,"  but  because  of  the  might  of  an  ancient  '*  reign 
of  law.") 

*'  When  He  uttereth  His  voice  there  is  a  multitude 
of  waters  in  the  heavens,  and  He  causeth  the 
vapors  to  ascend  from  the  ends  of  the  earth.  He 
maketh  lightnings  with  rain,  and  bringeth  forth  the 
wind  out  of  His  treasures "  [Jer.  x.  13].  "  For 
wisdom  and  might  are  His ;  and  He  changeth  the 
times  and  the  seasons  "  [Dan.  ii.  20,  21].  "  And  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  are  reputed  as  nothing ; 
and  He  doeth  according  to  His  will  in  the  army  of 
heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  and 
none  can  stay  His  hand,  or  say  unto  Him,  What 
doest  thou?"  [Dan.  iv.  35].  "The  God  in  whose 
hand  thy  breath  is,  and  whose  are  all  thy  ways  " 
[Dan.  v.  23].  **  Eejoice  in  the  Lord  your  God,  for 
He  hath  given  you  the  former  rain  moderately,  and 
He  will  cause  to  come  down  for  you  the  rain,"  &c. 
[Joel  ii.  23-27].  *' Bring  ye  all  the  tithes  into  the 
store-house  that  there  may  be  meat  in  my  house,  and 
jprove  me  now  herewith,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  if  I 
will  not  open  you  the  windows  of  heaven  and  pour 
you  out  a  blessing  that  there  shall  not  be  room 
enough  to  receive  it.  And  I  will  rebuke  the 
devourer  for  your  sakes,  and  he  shall  not  destroy  the 


104  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "  THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

fruits  of  your  ground,  neither  shall  your  vine  cast 
her  fruit  before  the  time  in  the  field,"  &c.  [Mai.  iii. 
10,  11.] 

Notice  the  natural  force  of  all  this  class  of  pass- 
ages as  compared  with  the  others.  Observe  this 
contrast  in  the  number,  in  their  easy  and  obvious 
meaning ;  in  the  divine  power  of  their  very  words 
to  "  exalt  the  Lord  Our  God  "  and  to  increase  our 
faith  in  Him.  Do  they  not  fit  only  to  the  thought 
that  we  may  think  of  Him  and  adore  Him  and  call 
upon  Him  in  prayers,  as  One  who  does  all  things  in 
person  and  now  ?  If  Ave  could  deny  that  these 
divine  sentences  directly  teach  men  to  think  so, 
could  we  question  that  they  encourage  them  in  that 
thought  if  already  entertained  ?  Does  not  the 
opposing  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  "  jar  harshly 
upon  the  sayings  of  the  Prophets  ? 

It  is  a  favorite  observation  of  our  modern  science, 
that  in  degree  as  men  have  been  ignorant  and  super- 
stitious, they  have  ascribed  all  things  to  divine  acts ; 
and  that  as  they  come  to  know  more  they  learn  that 
all  these  things  are  according  to  general  law.  This 
would  apply  exactly  to  these  and  all  like  sayings  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  would  be  in  effect  to  say 
that  men,  moved  by  the  Holy  Grhost,  misrepresented 
true  religion,  at  least  that  Grod  allowed  them  to  echo 
and  so  to  encourage  the  superstitious  follies  of  igno- 
rance. Observe,  in  further  objection  to  this  notion, 
that  these  same  teachings  run  through  all  the  ages 
and  all  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  are 
in  the  story  of  "  the  beginning";  in  the  manly  sim- 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  OLD   TESTAMENT.  105 

plicity  of  thinking  found  among  the  free  tribes  of  the 
first  ages ;  in  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  refinement 
of  the  first  (and  greatest)  of  the  kings  of  Israel ;  in 
the  first  Prophets,  who  knew  all  the  science  and 
reasonings  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  in  the  last  of  them 
who  looked  toward  the  dawn  of  *'  the  new  law." 
But  it  is  by  the  last  that  our  question  must  be  mainl}^ 
tried,  by  that  "  perfect  day  "  of  light  intellectual  and 
spiritual  for  all  mankind,  the  INew  Testament  of 
Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 


106        THE   KEIGN    OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   RKIGN  OP  LAW." 

CHAPTEE  YII. 

EXAMINATION    OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE — NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"\"TT*E  come  now  to  the  brightest  and  plainest 
VV  and  complete  Word  of  God  written,  "the 
New  Testament  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  We  have  already  gone  over  that  larger  part 
of  Holy  Writ  in  which,  as  relating  the  Creation  itself 
and  four  thousand  years  of  Providence  and  miracles 
afterwards,  we  might  have  felt  sure  that  we  should 
find  any  truth  there  might  be  of  a  "  reign  of  law,' 
told  us  directly  and  by  many  plain  allusions.  We 
have  found  nothing  of  the  kind;  nothing  which 
could  be  so  quoted,  unless  in  the  way  of  fanciful  re- 
semblance or  very  remote  conjecture. 

But  in  the  Scriptures  which  we  are  now  to 
"  search,"  we  shall  be  sure  to  find  the  conclusive 
truth.  These  will  either  at  last  reveal  "  the  reign 
of  law  "  in  "JSature  ";  or  dismiss  the  notion  from 
our  knowledge  as  untrue.  Some  of  the  greatest 
matters  of  religion  were  reserved  to  this  New  Testa- 
ment. The  intelligence  of  man  in  divine  things  was 
in  the  earlier  period  treated  as  in  a  state  of  nonage. 
So  we  might  suppose  that  the  Creator  reserved  this 
disclosure  of  "  natural  law,"  or  such  recognition  as 
complete  religious  truth  must  make  of  it,  if  true,  to 
the  Church  founded  upon  the  Redeemer  of  mankind. 
Now  that  "  the  Light  of  the  World  "  aj^pears  in 
person,  and  the  complete  knowledge  of  God   rises 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  NEW  TESTAMENT.  107 

upon  earth  like  the  sun,  this  truth  would  certainly 
no  longer  be  withheld.  At  the  very  least,  as  1  have 
suggested,  there  would  be  some  notice  of  it  in  speak- 
ing of  those  matters  in  which  it  could  not  but  touch 
upon  the  glory  of  God  and  men's  faith  in  Him  ;  so 
that  when  these  wiser  ages  of  Christendom  should 
come,  men  would  see  their  faith  in  God  to  be  in  full 
accord  with  that  truth. 

The  result  of  a  careful  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  in  general  that  there  is  not  one  word  about 
"  laws  of  Nature  "  in  it,  either  of  statement  or  allu- 
sion from  beginning  to  end.  On  the  other  hand  we  find 
many  (and  nowhere  else  in  Holy  Scripture  so  many) 
statements  and  implications  that  God  does  all  things 
by  His  immediate  will.  These  things  are  not  said 
with  the  inexact  warmth  and  color  of  poetical  ex- 
citement. Nor  are  they  of  those  things  in  Hol}^ 
Scripture  (if  there  be  any  such)  in  which  we  might 
properly  allow  that  the  inspired  man  uttered  the 
divine  thought  with  some  of  the  error  of  his  preju- 
dice. Thc}^  are  the  clear  and  calm  voices,  first  of 
the  Son  of  God  Himself,  and  then  of  His  Apostles,  to 
whom  He  committed  most  distinct  and  intellectual 
utterances  of  His  Word. 

In  this  case  it  was  not  even  necessary  to  anticipate 
a  thought  which  was  not  really  to  be  known  among 
men  until  after  many  unscientific  centuries.  This 
notion  of  law  in  Nature  was  already  in  the  world. 
For  more  than  three  centuries  it  had  been  talked  of 
by  acute  Pagan  philosophers.  What  could  we  say, 
then,  if  such   a  great   religious,   or   at   least   semi- 


108        THE   IlEIGN   OP   GOD  NOT   "  TUE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

religious,  truth    had  no  recognition  in    the  perfect 
Word  of  God  ? 

The  Christian  era  begins  with  most  magnificent 
disphiys  of  the  supernatural.  These  are  told  in  the 
Gospels  in  the  most  simple  and  natural  way.  Other 
incidents  which  no  one  thinks  miraculous  are  related 
with  them,  and  all  alike  as  done  by  the  immediate 
will  of  God.  It  is  not  even  always  easy  to  distin- 
guish in  these  glorious  facts  between  what  is  natural 
and  what  is  supernatural.  Of  such  is  the  birth  of 
St.  John  Baptist,  which  is  foretold  by  a  bright  angel 
from  God.  When  a  similar  message  comes  to  the 
virgin  mother  of  that  altogether  supernatural 
nativity  of  Our  Lord,  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  said  even 
of  John's  birth,  "  With  God  nothing  shall  be  impos- 
sible." The  glories  of  Bethlehem  are  recounted  in 
the  most  direct  and  simple  way,  as  if  they  had  no 
intellectual  difficulties  for  real  faith,  and  without  any 
of  the  apologies  and  qualifications  which  those  who 
believe  in  *'  laws  of  Nature  "  cannot  dispense  with  in 
recounting  the  marvellous. 

This  great  event  was  followed  by  about  thirty 
years  of  the  ordinary  life  of  the  world.  The  divine 
history  interrupts  this  first  with  the  preaching  of 
St.  John  Baptist.  It  is  remarkable  that  he  reproves 
his  countrymen  for  a  conceited  security  in  "  the 
reign  of  law  "  (as  that  notion  was  obscurely  in  men's 
minds,)  with  these  words  :  "  Begin  not  to  say  in 
yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  for  I 
say  unto  you  that  Qod  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise 
up  children  unto  Abraham  "  [St.  Luke  iii.  8]. 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  NEW  TESTAMENT.  109 

Our  Lord  proceeded  to  His  public  ministry  among 
men  after  a  most  sublime,  mystical  conflict  with 
Satan,*  in  which  twice  occurs  the  occasion  for  Him 
to  speak  of  '^  laws  of  Nature,"  if  there  were  any  such. 
The  first  saying  of  the  tempter  is  :  '*  If  thou  be  the 
Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  niade 
bread."  Is  His  answer  at  all,  or  in  substance,  what 
even  the  most  religious  of  our  Christian  men  of 
science  would  say  now  ?  Would  they  not  say  that 
the  will  of  God  was  in  fixed  "laws  of  Nature";  or  at 
least  allude  to  these?  The  Lord's  answer  is,  "It  is 
written,  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by 
every  word  which  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of 
God."  This,  as  I  apprehend,  tells  us  with  the 
greatest  plainness,  that  our  physical  life  is  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  immediate  will  of  the  Blessed, 
Eternal  One ;  and  this,  whatever  further  reference 
to  our  spiritual  good  w^e  may  suppose  in  the  words. 

The  reply  to  the  second  temptation  was  another 
occasion  to  mention  this  truth  of  natural  law,  if  a 
truth.  The  suggestion  to  venture  upon  a  miracle  of 
mere  display  is  met,  not  by  saying  that  it  is  impos- 
sible or  even  improper  on  account  of  a  "law  of 
Nature,"  and  as  it  would  not  in  this  case  be  done  to 
attest  the  Word  of  God  to  men.  It  is  refused  simply 
because  it  is  not -the  will  of  God. "j"  Let  us  notice 
that  this  is  not  so  much  because  against  that  blessed 
Will,  as  not  being  positively  called  for  by  it. 

When  this  glorious  Master  of  Wisdom   goes   to 

*  St.  Matthew  iv.    St.  Luke  iv. 

fSt.  Matthew  iv.  7—"  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God." 

10 


110  THE   KEIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

teach  mankind  about  their  ordinary  life,  e.  g.  how 
they  are  to  think  about  their  food  and  clothing,  He 
says  nothing,  even  by  most  remote  allusions,  of  this 
"  reign  of  law."  He  speaks  in  such  an  unconscious- 
ness of  it,  as  would  now  make  our  man  of  science 
smile  if  he  overheard  such  teaching.  He  said  simply 
and  directly  that  God  "  clothes  the  grass  of  the 
field,"  and  feeds  the  birds,  and,  in  the  same  way, 
'*  adds  unto  "  us  whatever  we  need  for  our  bodily  life. 
He  enjoins  upon  us  to  imitate  Him  who  "  maketh 
the  sun  to  rise  upon  the  evil  and  the  good,  and 
sendeth  rain  upon  the  jast  and  the  unjust."  He 
teaches  us  to  live  without  care  or  fear,  because  not  a 
sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without  God,  and  because 
the  very  hairs  of  our  head  are  numbered  by  Him. 

He  teaches  each  soul  of  man  to  make  this  daily 
prayer,  asking  Our  Father  Who  is  in  Heaven,  "  G-ive 
us  this  day  our  daily  bread."  (I  would  put  these 
seven  short  words  alone  against  all  the  ingenious 
philosophy  that  has  reasoned  of  "  natural  law," 
the  confident  references  to  "  a  decree  for  the  rain  " 
and  other  such  phrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  all 
the  "  painful  "  arguments  used  to  persuade  devout 
men  that  a  "reign  of  law  "  does  not  forbid  them  to 
pray.  The  more  those  words  are  pondered,  the 
more  weighty  they  are  in  this  question.  Entangle 
your  soul  if  you  will  in  an  intellectual  demonstration 
that  we  men  are  but  insignificant  parts  of  a  vast 
inexorable  machine ;  but  with  every  rising  sun 
remember  to  pray,  not.  Give  me  all  knowledge  of 
these    unvarying    laws    i»    obeying    which    all    my 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE — NEW   TESTAMENT.  Ill 

welfare  consists;  but,  "Give  us  this  day  our  daily 
bread.")* 

He  speaks  again  and  again  of  things  which  are 
impossible  to  men,  while  "  all  things  are  possible 
with  God  "  [St.  Matth.  xix.  26.— St.  Mark  x.  27.— St. 
Luke  xviii.  27].  He  tells  them  how  to  avail  them- 
selves of  that  infinite  power  [St.  Matth.  xvii.  20,  etc]. 
He  says  that  if  they  are  children  of  God,  and  the 
fewest  of  them  combine  in  asking  anything  of  Him, 
"it  shall  be  done  for  them"  [St.  Matth.  xviii.  19, 
etc.].  He  does  not  limit  this  to  spiritual  and  so  ex- 
elude  physical  things.  He  makes  a  tree  wither 
before  men's  eyes,  and  uses  that  occasion  to  say,  "  If 
ye  have  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  ye  shall  say 
unto  this  mountain,  Remove  hence  to  yonder  plain  ; 
and  it  shall  remove,  and  nothing  shall  be  impossible 
to  you  "  [St.  Matt.  xvii.  20]. 

He  Himself  continually  for  three  years  ''doeth 
great  wonders."  He  heals  incurable  diseases.  He 
replaces  the  utterly  lost  senses  of  men,  and  creates 
those  senses  in  some  who  had  never  before  possessed 
them.  He  restores  others  to  life  after  they  have 
died.  He  walks  at  night  upon  a  raging  sea  amid  a 
howling  tempest,  and  by  His  words  of  command 
makes  a  great  and  sudden  calm.  He  says  of  these 
miracles,  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  work," 
describing  the  power  of  God  in  all  things  visible  as 
being  like  His,  acts  of  present  Divine  will  [St.  John  v. 
17].     Yet  in  none  of  these  instances,  nor  at  any  other 

*  After  this  was  written  I  waa  not  surprised  to  read  of  some  (orthodox 
but)  scientific  Christian  teacher  who  contended  that  this  petition  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer  should  be  disused  by  all  who  understand  the  "  reign  of 
law."    It  is  an  irresistible  corollary  of  that  notion. 


112  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

time,  does  He  talk  of  "  forces  "  or  "  laws  of  Nature," 
or  anything  equivalent  to  them,  nor  make  the  most 
remote  allusion  to  such  things. 

Let  us  challenge  the  reconsideration  and  honest 
judgment  of  all  Christian  men  upon  these  facts. 
Could  they  reasonably  believe  in  a  "reign  of  law,"  if 
the  Gospels  were  only  silent  about  it?  But  j^et 
more,  is  it  credibly  true  when  with  so  many  occasions, 
and  we  may  even  say  necessities  for  Our  Lord 
Christ  to  speak  of  it  to  men  if  true,  not  a  word  of 
the  sort  can  be  found  to  set  against  the  mighty  sen- 
tences in  which  He  shows  us  the  present  power  of 
Grod  in  all  events  ?  And  who  is  this  "  Word  of  God  '* 
in  complete  truth  "  without  any  mixture  of  error  "  ? 
What  is  He  beside  being  the  Witness  of  the  Divine  ? 
He  is  the  very  person  who  would  have  made  the 
*'  laws  of  Nature  "  if  there  were  any.  He  is  the  One 
who,  (if  there  be  any  truth  in  that  notion,)  "  subjected 
Himself"  to  this  "  reign  of  law,"  of  which  evidently 
He  knows  nothing ! 

After  Our  Lord  ascends  into  Heaven,  the  New 
Testament  continues  with  a  history  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  Nowhere  in  this  have  we  a  word  of 
"natural  law."  One  of  these  Apostles  is  evidently 
well  acquainted  with  the  Greek  philosoph}^,  which  did 
already  contain  at  least  the  suggestion  of  ^Maws  of 
Nature  "  and  the  notion  (in  germ)  of  their  "  reign  "; 
but  he  nowhere  mentions  it.  Some  later  Christian 
writers  (whose  works  are  not  Holy  Scriptures,  nor 
they  any  way  as  safe  guides  to  truth  as  this  Apostle,) 
treat  this  and  other  notions  of  Plato  as  profound 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  NEW   TESTAMENT.  113 

searchiogs  into  the  truth  of  God,  only  less  than  in- 
spired. We  shall  see  later  that  St.  Paul  does 
speak  generally  of  this  "  men's  wisdom,"  but  only  to 
warn  Christians  against  mixing  it  with  their  reli- 
gious thought. 

He  did  go  to  Athens  itself,  and  "  certain  philo- 
sophers encountered  him."  That  these  at  first  were 
not  Platonists,  but  "Epicureans  and  Stoics,"  does 
not  alter  the  significance  of  this  occasion.  His 
great  discourse  at  Athens  was  before  an  audience 
made  up  from  all  the  curious  and  disputatious 
Athenians,  among  whom  he  might  be  sure  were  some 
Academics  or  scholars  of  Plato,  as  well  as  some 
Peripatetics  or  followers  of  Aristotle.  He  proceeds 
to  speak  of  the  One  God,  of  Creation,  and  of  all  life 
and  movement  since.  He  gladly  seizes  upon  the  re- 
semblance of  one  of  their  superstitions  (of  "the 
Unknown  God  ")  to  the  true  religion,  to  teach  that 
truth. 

But  does  He  say,  "  Someof  your  philosophers  have 
had  divine  light  given  them  to  perceive  by  their  studies 
how  God,  in  Creation,  set  up  unvarying  laws  of 
Nature  ;  and  unless  He  interposes  in  these  in  a  very 
unusual  way,  all  things  proceed  by  their  own  force  "? 
No  ;  but  he  does  say  what  is  in  eifect  the  exact  oppo- 
site ;  that  "  He  giveth  (not  gave)  to  all  life  and 
breath  and  all  things.  ...  In  Him  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being  "  [Acts  xvii.  25,  28].  Much  the 
same  in  substance  had  he  publicly  said  once  before  in 
a  heathen  city  [Acts  xiv.  15,  17].  Thus,  in  all  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  while  we  have  many  miracles 


114  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

related  without  any  suggestion  that  God  then  "  sus- 
pended the  laws  of  Nature,"  or  the  like  ;  and  while 
Providence  and  prayer  are  often  mentioned  without 
an}^  allusion  to  a  "  reign  of  law  ";  we  have  the  imme- 
diate power  of  Grod  in  all  things  set  against  those 
opposite  notions  which  were  already  in  the  philo- 
sophy of  men. 

In  the  Epistles  we  have  the  truth  of  God  given  to 
us  in  the  "  scientific "  form  (as  some  would  say), 
rather  than  the  historical.  Perhaps  here,  at  last,  we 
are  to  have  a  disclosure  of  the  religious  truth  about 
''laws  of  Nature"?  But  no;  it  is  not  in  the  Epis- 
tles at  all.  They  are  (as  we  have  observed  in  other 
parts  of  Holy  Scripture,)  thickly  sown  with  occasions 
to  speak  of  it,  if  true  ;  as  whenever  the  great  Crea- 
tion, or  the  good  Providence,  or  mighty  miracles,  or 
gracious  answers  to  men's  prayers,  are  mentioned. 
Yet  never  was  a  more  decisive  "  silence  of  Scripture." 

Nor  is  this  all.  They  say  things  plainly  opposed 
to  that  notion.  "  Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect 
gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the 
Father  of  lights,"  etc.  [St.  James  i.  17.]  "  It  is  the 
same  God  who  worketh  all  in  all "  [1  Cor.  xii.  6]. 
"  It  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to 
do  of  His  good  pleasure  "  [Phil.  ii.  13].  "According 
to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will "  [Eph.  i.  5].  "  Who 
worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own  will  " 
[Eph.  i.  11]. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  these  last  sentences  have 
been  commonly  (but  not  properly)  assumed  to 
speak  only  of  what  the  Almighty  One  does  to  mew, 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  NEW  TESTAMENT.  115 

and  in  regard  to  their  spiritual  welfare  ;  and  so  have 
011I3"  been  fought  over  in  the  great  controversy  about 
*'  free  will."  In  so  far  as  God  is  said  to  do  all,  while 
we  are  morally  free,  a  fortiori  (so  much  the  more) 
are  they  true  of  all  that  is  outside  of  a  moral  free- 
agency.  It  does  not  belong  at  all  to  this  enquiry  to 
treat  of  that-great  question.  We  may  simply  stand 
upon  the  truth,  that  if  God  has  chosen  to  give  inde- 
pendent action  to  free  personal  wills  in  some  of  His 
creatures,  surely  all  others  move  and  act  only  by  Mis 
immediate  will. 

But  the  last  of  those  passages  needs  more  critical 
notice,  on  account  of  the  strange  misuse  of  it  by  the 
great  Hooker  in  the  very  question  before  us.*  He 
maintains  that  to  say  "  the  counsel  of  His  will," 
implies  that  it  was  not  absolute  will,  but  that  God 
had  to  consider  some  abstract  "  reason  of  things  "  or 
a  sort  of  eternal  "  reign  of  law  "  which  would  cer- 
tainly decide  His  choice.  But  let  any  one  carefully 
study  the  word  BouXrjv  of  the  original  Greek,  and  he 
will  find  that  no  term  could  have  been  used  to  express 
will  more  absolutely.  In  classic  Greek  it  is  the  word 
always  employed  to  express  divine  volition.  It  is 
unfortunate  that  our  excellent  English  version 
should  have  here  rendered  it  "  counsel."  Not  that 
it  could  not  be  justified  by  many  parallel  passages 
where  this  very  term  ''  counsel "  cannot  possibly 
mean  anything  but  will  (as,  e.  g.,  Heb.  vi.  17,  "  the 
immutability  of  His  counsel  ")  ;  showing  the  English 
word    "  counsel "    may   properly    mean    the    secret 

*  Eccl.  Pol.,  Book  I.— See  more  fully  of  this  infra. 


116  THE  REIGN   OF  GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

purpose  and  decision  of  a  will ;  but  it  has  given  a 
chance  for  the  misconstruction  mentioned  above. 
The  sentence  would,  therefore,  read  most  correctly 
in  English,  "  Who  worketh  all  things  according  to 
the  wish  of  His  own  will.''''  It  was  meant  for  the 
most  precise  and  energetic  expression  of  such  abso- 
lute will  without  any  suggestion — rather  with  exact 
exclusion — of  anything  like  consultation,  reasoning 
or  motive,  and  yet  more  of  any  law  for  the  Eternal 
Lord.  If  my  reader  could  need  anything  more  to 
convince  him,  he  will  see  it  in  the  passage  I  cited 
just  before  this  one.  It  is  in  the  very  same  exhorta- 
tion of  St.  Paul  to  his  Ephesian  converts,  but  a  few 
verses  before  this,  and  evidently  another  noble  ex- 
pression of  the  same  great  truth  :  "According  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  His  will." 

Nor  would  this  study  of  the  Epistles  be  complete 
without  recalling  attention  to  what  St.  Paul  says  in 
condemnation  of"  the  wisdom  of  this  world,"  etc.,  as 
compared  with  (or  if  mingled  with)  the  knowledge 
of  divine  things  which  we  get  from  the  very  Word 
of  God.  What  he  says  of  this  at  least  includes,  if  it 
be  not  even  specially  intended  for,  such  speculations  of 
Plato,  Aristotle,  etc.,  as  grew  into  the  modern  notions 
of  "  natural  law  "  and  its  "  reign."  But  we  shall 
treat  of  this  more  fully  under  the  title  of  the  history 
of  that  theory.     (See  infra  Chap.  VIII.) 

But  there  is  a  certain  other  saying  of  St.  Paul's 
which,  though  I  am  not  aware  that  it  has  ever 
before  been  so  suggested,  bears  powerfully,  and  I 
think  decisively,  upon  this  enquiry.     If  there  is  any. 


HOLY  Scripture— NEW  testament.  117 

writer  who  can  be  styled  in  a  good  sense  "  the  Chris- 
tian philosopher,"  he  may  be.  God  gave  him  a 
mind  to  see  the  deepest  general  relations  of  things, 
and,  what  is  much  more,  inspired  him  to  write  His 
Word  with  incidental  mention  of  such  relations  in 
absolute  truth.  We  might  apply  in  expostulation 
with  many  a  Christian  thinker,  his  very  words, 
'*  Therefore  thou  art  inexcusable,  O  man " — who 
loseth  thine  own  way  in  human  metaphysics  and 
bewilderest  others !  without  a  thought  of  what 
St.  Paul  and  others  "  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  " 
have,  in  the  midst  of  the  lessons  of  true  religion,  let 
fall  by  the  way,  about  the  "  spirit,  soul  and  body  "  of 
man.  This  has  not  been  quite  unnoticed  ;  but  he  who 
shall  yet  give  the  time  and  labor  necessary  for  a 
complete  treatment  of  this,  will  do  a  great  work 
toward  clearing  up  the  obscurities  and  errors  of  all 
philosophy. 

Whether  or  not  St.  Paul  had  been  instructed  in 
his  youth  in  the  Greek  and  other  philosophies  rife  in 
that  age,  (as  some  think)  or  not,  he  had  been  at 
Athens  debating  the  high  questions  of  religion  with 
the  scholars  of  Epicurus,  Zeno,  Plato,  and  Aristotle. 
It  was  after  this  that,  "by  inspiration  of  God,"  he 
wrote  the  perfect  theory  and  argument  of  what  was 
already  in  the  faith  of  Christians,  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  In  this  he  adduces  in 
illustration  one  of  the  very  things  which  are  certainly 
under  the  "  reign  of  law,"  if  there  be  any  such  thing. 
It  was  such  a  case  that  the  favorite  postulate  of 
modern  science,  if  true,  could  not  fail  to  be  men- 
tioned ;  namely,  the  growth  of  a  plant  from  its  seed. 


118  THE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

But  what  is  St.  Paul's  account  of  this  ?  "  But 
some  man  will  say,  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and 
with  what  body  do  they  come  ?  Thou  fool !  that 
which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except  it  die  ; 
and  that  which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that 
body  which  shall  be,  but  bare  grain  ;  it  may  chance 
of  wheat  or  some  other  grain  ;  but  Ood  giveth  it  a 
body,  as  it  hath  pleased  Him  ;  and  to  every  seed  his 
own  body  "  [1  Cor.  xv.  35-38]. 

It  will  be  observed  upon  scrutiny  that  not  only  is 
"  natural  law  "  entirely  (in  lawj^er's  phrase)  ignored, 
but  that  something  else  is  affirmed,  viz.,  that  in  each 
case  of  the  growth  of  a  plant  from  the  seed,  "  Grod 
giveth  it  a  body."  Had  the  verb  been  "  gave  "  there 
might  be  opportunity  to  argue  that  this  meant  some 
general  gift  of  inherent  power  at  the  time  of  the 
Creation.  The  entire  argument  is  against  all  un- 
believing notions  of  impossibility  in  anything  which^ 
God  sa3^s  He  will  do.  The  special  illustration  here 
is  that  just  as,  with  an  attention  and  action  which  has 
no  possible  weakness  or  weariness.  He  in  all  vege- 
table growth,  by  His  mere  will,  makes  a  plant  follow 
a  seed,  so  will  He  give  each  of  us  a  spiritual  body  in 
succession  to  this  natural  one  which  decays.  In 
both  cases  alike,  a  kind  of  identity  and  a  succession 
of  life  between  the  new  thing  and  the  old  is  expressly 
recognized.  The  words,  "  and  to  every  seed  his  own 
body,"  confirm  this;  while  the  other  phrase,  ''as  it 
hath  pleased  Him,"  emphasizes  it  all  as  His  immediate 
act.  Only  see  how  the  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  " 
must  needs  have  expressed  itself  in  a  like  case  ;  thus, 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  NEW  TESTAJVIENT.  119 

begininng  with  the  37th  verse,  "And  that  which 
thou  sowest,  etc.,  but  —  it  receiveth  a  certain  body 
according  to  an  invariable  law  established  in  the  Crea- 
tion ";  or  ^^it  receiveth  a  body  developed  by  forces  which 
were  set  in  jnotion  then  and  are  never  interfered  ivith,^' 
(unless  in  express  miracle,  which  was  not  all  the  case 
supposed  by  St.  Paul)  ;  as  Leibnitz  actually  says,  "  so 
that  they  are  able  of  themselves  to  execute  their 
functions." 

The  great  Eevelation  of  St.  John,  which  closes  the 
Book  of  God,  has  no  notice  of  "  natural  law,"  while 
it  contains  various  sublime  declarations  concerning 
the  works  of  God  which  agree  only  with  His  inces- 
sant and  immediate  doing  of  all  things.  Its  awful 
and  glorious  visions  of  the  passing  away  of  the 
present  Creation,  recognize  no  repeal  of  existing 
"  laws  of  Nature,"  but  they  might  well  suggest  to  us 
the  falsity  of  any  notion  of  a  •'  reign  of  law."  This 
should  remind  us  that  there  really  is  in  these  Holy 
Writings  one  mention,  by  way  of  prophecy,  of  this 
notion  and  of  its  natural  eifect  upon  faith.    It  is  this  : 

"  There  shall  come  in  the  last  days  scoffers 

saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming?  for 
since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as 
they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  Creation  " 
[2  Peter  iii.  3,  4]. 

It  is  true,  and  I  have  already  many  times 
recognized  it  as  true,  that  many  who  are  by  no 
means  scoffers,  but  are  sincere  Christian  believers, 
maintain  the  opinion  which  I  suppose  to  be  intended, 
or  at  least  included,  in   the   terrible  censure  of  this 


120  THE   KEIGN   OP   GOD   NOT   "THE   KEIGN   OF   LAW." 

sentence  of  Holy  Writ.  This  application  of  the 
words  is  founded  upon  the  general  sense  of  all  Holy 
Scripture.  For  this  question,  and  for  the  best  result 
of  all  this  present  study,  we  shall  do  well  to  look  to 
such  general  sense.  We  must  not  be  at  all  satisfied 
with  some  success  in  finding  passages  which  seem  to 
favor  our  preconceived  opinions,  or  with  ingeniously 
*'  reconciling  "  others  that  were  not  so  much  to  our 
purpose.  The  comparison  and  verbal  discussion  of 
separate  verses  of  Holy  Scripture  has  its  illusions,  and 
its  tendencies  to  deviation  from  the  direct  pursuit  of 
truth.  It  is,  therefore,  most  useful  to  turn  from  this 
at  last,  however  needful  in  its  place,  and  take  a  fair 
look  at  the  general  spirit  and  effect  of  the  written 
Word  of  God,  and  more  especially  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  regards  the  matter  in  question.  Let  each 
of  my  readers  then  ask  himself  which  of  the  opposing 
ideas  before  us  agrees  best  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Book  of  God  as  we  have  now  traversed  it 
together ;  or,  according  to  his  own  careful  reading 
and  recollection,  if  he  has  preferred  another  method. 
We  did  begin  that  investigation  in  th«  order  of 
time,  and  with  the  Old  Testament.  That  order  has 
its  value.  But  now,  in  this  review  and  general 
result,  the  other  order  is  most  reasonable.  The 
Gospel  of  Our  Lord  is  the  complete  truth  of  re- 
ligion ;  His  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth 
that  is  to  last  till  time  shall  be  no  more.  And 
especially  as  the  notion  which  is  upon  trial  is  sup- 
posed by  its  adherents  to  bo  the  result  of  men's  later 
intellectual  activity,  it  will  if  true  find  recognition. 


HOLY   SCRIPTUKE — NEW   TESTAMENT.  121 

not  in  the  dawn  of  God's  Word  in  prophecy  and 
jDoetry,  but  rather  in  that  Divine  light  of  clear  in- 
telligence which  followed,  and  in  which  true  discovery 
found  its  greatest  impulse. 

Now  there  are  two  general  ideas  of  man's  life,  and 
his  knowledge  of  what  is  around  him,  which  we 
have  to  choose  between.  One  is,  that  our  best  nature 
and  aspiration  is  to  regard  this  world  and  all  in  it, 
and  all  other  worlds,  as  a  vast  and  perfect  machine, 
which  only  needs  each  of  us  to  study  and  all  to  com- 
bine their  results  in  collecting  this  knowledge,  so  as 
to  learn  about  all  its  past  and  calculate  all  its  future. 
The  tendency  of  this  idea  is  to  persuade  us  that  the 
present  processes  have  had  no  real  beginning  ^nd 
will  have  no  end.  And  one  of  its  .corollaries  is  that 
man  is  an  insignificant  thing  in  all  this  vastness,  and 
his  individual  .life  but  a  little  floating  bubble  on  the 
shoreless  ocean. 

The  other  and  opjx)site  idea  is,  that  we  know^rsif 
of  a  great  Person,  immensely  greater  not  only  than 
we,  but  than  all  beside  Himself,  who  has  told  us  that 
many  ages  ago  He  made  us  and  all  this  for  His  good 
pleasure,  and  especially  in  order  that  we  of  mankind 
might  know  and  love  Him ;  and  that  He  will,  we  can 
never  be  sure  how  soon,  make  an  end  of  '•  all  things 
visible,"  and  replace  them  with  something  better  and 
more  enduring,  while  spirits  and  persons  (i.  e.  God, 
angels  and  mankind)  will  continue  to  exist :  that  this 
great  change  will  be  made  (at  least  for  one  purpose) 
in  order  that  we  men  may  be  raised  out  of  a  general 
degradation  from  the  love  of  God  and  man,  and  un- 
11 


123  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   BEIGN   OP  LAW." 

happiness,  which  has  befallen  our  kind,  and  in  which 
the  Cosmos  around  us  has  a  certain  sympathy  of  dis- 
order; that  our  chiefconcern  of  knowledge  and  hope  is 
with  this  Divine  and  spiritual  now,  and  that  super- 
natural future ;  so  that  while  we  have  cares  and 
duties  which  must  employ  much  of  our  time,  and 
belong  mainly  to  this  life,  and  therefore  some  may 
well  explore  this  universe  and  its  usual  order  of 
cause  and  effect,  and  all  may  use  this  knowledge  as 
it  accumulates  with  the  successive  generations  of 
men,  this  does  not  compare  in  urgency  and  value  to 
us  with  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  how  to  regain 
our  true  life  as  He  has  given  us  that  knowledge  in  a 
Gospel  of  mercy ;  to  regain  this  partially  now,  and 
afterwards  completely  and  forever. 

Need  I  say  that  these  two  ideas  of  man's  life  are 
entirely  opposed  to  one  another ;  that  one  cannot 
occupy  a  mind  without  displacing  the  other?  Need 
I  say  that  the  latter  prevails  through  all  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ?*  The  other  is  I  think  in  substance  and 
essence,  certainly  in  intellectual  tendency,  that  of  the 
"  reign  of  law." 

So  the  Holy  Scriptures  always  speak  of  pride  as 
one  of  the  greatest  mischiefs  of  mankind,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  pride  of  knowledge  acquired  by  our  own 
observation  and  reasoning,  as  a  weakness  and  danger; 
while  the  humility  which  would  rather  love  truth  as 

*If  any  Christian  believers  call  for  specific  citations  in  support  of  this 
beside  their  general  reading  and  the  combined  effect  of  a  thousand 
rerses,  I  refer  them  to  such  passages  as  these :  "  For  we  know  that  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now," 
[Rom.  viii.  22.]  "  While  we  look  not  at  the  things  which  are  seen,  but 
at  the  things  which  are  unseen;  for  the  things  which  are  seen  are 
temporal,  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal,"  [1  Cor.  It.  18.] 
Are  these  at  all  accordant  with  the  other  idea  ? 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE  —  NEW   TESTAMENT.  123 

told  us  by  our  Superior,  is  both  more  honorable  and 
more  sure.  Thus  they  command  and  commend  simple 
faith  in  God's  Word.  On  the  other  hand,  all  such 
science  as  is  founded  upon  the  assumption  of  a 
"  reign  of  law,"  both  promotes  intellectual  pride  and 
makes  religious  faith  more  diflScult.  This  tendency 
is  well  displayed  in  the  remark  often  met  with  in 
modern  books,  that  in  proportion  as  ages  or  nations 
are  ignorant  of  "  natural  law,"  they  think  whatever 
they  do  not  understand  to  be  Divine  power  ;  but 
that  as  they  become  enlightened,  they  refer  all  such 
things  to  some  invariable  but  unknown  "law." 

Another  such  tendency  is  to  assume  that  whatever 
high  powers  or  valuable  knowledge  mankind  have 
now,  must  have  been  reached  by  gradual  intellectual 
improvement  from  the  first  ages,  when  man  was  in 
all  respects  a  creature  far  inferior  to  his  present 
"best  estate."  But  Holy  Writ  without  denying  the 
low  condition  of  all  mankind,  almost  from  the  first, 
and  especially  of  the  great  part  of  it  which  has  been 
sitting  in  darkness  of  false  religion,  informs  us  that 
this  is  a  fearful  fall  from  the  glorious  "  image  of 
God  "  in  which  He  created  our  first  progenitors,  to 
which  we  can  only  be  gradually  returning  now  by 
His  mercy,  and  never  completely  in  this  life. 

Another  such  contrast  deserves  the  notice  of 
thoughtful  Christians.  All  the  writings  and  speech  of 
our  age  are  full  of  the  term  "  Nature,"  meaning  the 
whole  universe  of  what  God  has  created,  as  if  it  had 
a  personality,  or  at  least  unity  of  organization  and 
force  in  itself     One  who  should  try  to  dispense  with 


124  THE   IlEIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

the  term  in  this  sense  even  for  common  conversation, 
would  be  astonished  to  find  what  difficulty  and 
singularity'  of  expression  would  be  forced  upon  him. 
But  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  God  use  no  such  term  or 
any  equivalent  expression  for  the  conception  ;  "^  they 
tell  us  of  "  the  creation  of  God  "  and  of  His  "  works," 
but  they  have  not  from  beginning  to  end  anything 
of  "  the  works  of  Nature  "  or  of  its  making  or  doing 
anything. 

As  the  result  of  this  study  of  the  Word  of  God,  it 
appears  that  the  assumption  of  a  "reign  of  law," 
which  touches  all  the  greatest  questions  of  faith, 
has  no  recognition  in  the  New  Testament,  nay,  is 
quite  expressly  contradicted  there.  Is  not  this  deci- 
sive? Nevertheless,  if  some  sentences  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  still  alleged  in  behalf  of  that  notion, 
we  might  proceed  further  to  examine  it  throughout 
for  all  teaching  which  bears  upon  this  matter.  But 
if  in  this  we  have  found  the  few  alleged  proofs  to  be 
bold  figures  of  prophecy  and  poetry  which  by  no 
means  need  mean  what  is  claimed,  while  the  whole 
tenor  of  Law  and  Prophets  accords  with  the  New 
Testament  in  teaching  the  present  power  and  will 
of  God  in  all  things,  then  the  proof  of  this  is  comj^lete. 

There  may  be  Christian  readers  of  this  who  are 
still  so  loath  to  surrender  what  they  have  long 
accepted  as  certain  truth,  that  they  will  not  allow 
this  test  of  it  by  Holy  Scripture,  upon  the  plea  that, 
as  the  "reign  of  law"  was  a  great  truth  which  God 

*If  any  one  question  this  by  reference  to  any  of  the  thirteen  passages 
in  which  our  English  Bible  gives  the  term  "nature,"  he  need  but  ex- 
amine them  to  be  convinced. 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE  —  NEW  TESTAMENT.  135 

meant  to  disclose  to  men  only  by  their  discoveries 
and  reflections,  and  ages  after  His  Scripture  was 
given  them  complete,  so  He  would  not  anticipate  it 
by  any  mention  or  reference  therein.  But  they  can. 
not  so  think  without  refusing  to  Grod's  Word  Written 
such  faith  and  reverence  as  are  due.  For  to  say 
nothing  of  its  being  silent  about  something  which 
men  were  yet  to  discover  for  themselves,  and  yet 
which  cannot  be  separated  from  the  greatest  questions 
of  religion,  the  express  words  of  Ro\y  Scripture 
must  have  tended  to  encourage  men  of  earlier  days 
in  what  this  notion  calls  a  false  thought  of  God. 
Even  now  those  words  forbid  me  to  believe  in  a 
*'  reign  of  law." 

No ;  this  is  rather  a  most  clear  and  powerful  illus- 
tration of  the  value  of  fixed  institutions  of  religion  ; 
fixed  in  words  both  of  instruction  and  worship,  which 
do  not  merely  reflect  the  intellectual  fashion  of  the 
l^assing  age.  Here  is  all  our  literature  and  the 
ordinary  speech  of  men  full  of  the  false  notion  of 
"natural  law,"  and  tending  to  the  universal  acknow- 
ledgment of  its  despotic  "reign."  There  stand  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  God  and,  at  least  for  the  great 
and  influential  English-speaking  nations,  the  words 
of  Christian  worship  in  their  Common  Prayer,  how_ 
ever  obsolete  to  the  greater  number  in  this  country ,=* 
silent  about  this  "Nature,"  but  resj^onding  with 
approval  to  the  humblest  voice  that  recalls  a  despised 

♦Those  of  my  readers  who  are  disposed  to  agree  with  me  so  far  in  the 
mam,  but  find  this  against  their  prepossessions,  can  easily  enough  pasd 
It  over.  But  /could  not,  in  my  purpose  to  "  declare  all  the  counsel  "  of 
this  great  truth,  according  to  the  observations  and  reflections  of  many 
years. 


126  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

and  forgotten  truth.  It  is  the  eager  and  self-sufficient 
human  present  corrected  by  Divine  truth  out  of  the 
past.  It  is  mankind  intoxicated  and  led  astray  by 
intellectual  vanity  even  far  down  in  the  Christian 
era,  yet  called  back  to  truth  and  salvation  by  the 
mercy  of  God. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION   OF   A   "  REIGN  OF  LAW."       127 

CHAPTER  YIII. 

History  of  the  Notion  of  a  "Reign  of  Law." 

'TT'T'HEN  we  are  making  a  faithful  investigation 
VV  of  the  truth  and  value  of  some  opinion, 
nothing  is  better  to  clear  the  mind  from  disturbing 
prepossessions,  than  to  study  its  history.  This  is 
especially  so  when  the  opinion  in  question  has  long 
prevailed  and  is  strong  in  the  authority  of  great  men, 
both  living  and  long  dead.  Such  study  leads  us  out 
of  the  fogs  of  prejudice  and  controversy,  into  clear 
air  in  which  we  see  the  actual  objects  of  our  thoughts. 
It  shows  us  the  first  approaches  and  access  to  men's 
minds  of  the  opinion  in  question  :  what  then  disposed 
them  in  its  favor ;  what  confirmed  this  and  extended 
it  to  many  other  minds ;  what  earlier  and  contrary 
belief  may  have  once  prevailed,  and  how  that  fared 
in  collision  with  this ;  and  what  still  maintains  the 
one  against  the  other.  If  the  now  prevailing  opinion 
be  true,  it  will  grow  strong  by  this  enquiry  ;  if  false, 
we  shall  the  better  escape  from  its  hold.  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer  has  a  glimpse  of  this  when  he  says  that 
enquiring  into  the  pedigree  of  an  idea  is  not  a  bad 
way  of  estimating  its  value.  In  a  great  matter  like 
that  before  us,  we  need  more  than  pedigree  ;  we  need 
a  chronology  —  a  real  history. 

The  history  of  '^  the  reign  of  law "  as  of  some 
other  dynasties,  has  its  difficulties.  It  loses  itself  in 
the   region    of  mere    tradition,   and    even   "myth." 


128        THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF  LAW." 

Such  notions,  like  other  nebulous  bodies,  are  often 
long  in  taking  definite  and  final  shape.  Some  of  its 
patrons  are  certain  that  it  came  from  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  or  the  ancient  Greek  philosophy  in  general 
effect.*  Others  are  sure  that  it  is  entirely  the  pro- 
duct and  crowning  achievement  of  Modern  Scienee.f 
Some  even  refer  it  to  Holy  Scripture ;  but  this,  as 
wo  have  already  seen,  cannot  be  true.J 

Each  of  the  other  theories  is  right  in  a  measure. 
Some  notions  and  phrases  of  the  Greek  philosophers 
and  their  scholars  gave  a  certain  direction  of  this 
kind  to  the  language  and  assumptions  of  Modern 
Science.  No  one  can  find  in  Plato  what  is  now  so 
confidently  imputed  to  him.  He  left  in  writing  so 
many  curious  speculations,  without  caring  about 
their  consistency,  and  in  so  entertaining  a  way,  that 
entirelj^  contrary  opinions  have  been  since  his  day 
sincerely  and  zealously  maintained  under  authority 
of  his  name.  The  nearest  approach  to  the  "reign  of 
law  "  in  Plato  is  where,  among  other  such  things  in 
the  Tim£eus,§  he  says  :  "  The  Creator  Himself  being 
the  artificer  of  Divine  natures,  committed  to  His 
offspring  (the  inferior  gods)  the  charge  of  producing 
those  that  are  mortal";  and  "after  arranging  these 
particulars.  He  retired  to  His  accustomed  state,  and 
His  sons  obeyed  their  Father's  order."  Those  who 
know  Plato  only  by  the  unmeasured  praises  and  even 

*  Hooker's  Eccles.  Pol.  Book  Ist— McCosh  on  Positivism,  etc. 

+  Lewes'  Aristotle;  Fiske's  Outl.  of  Cosraical  Philos.  I.  173,  etc. 

$See  also  a  fuller  discussion  of  Eccles.  Pol.  Bk.  I.  infra  Chap.  IX. 

^  Gary's  Transl.  Bohn's  Ed.  ii.  380,  347.  I  quote  this  translation  as 
being  upon  the  whole  as  fair  a  rendering  as  can  be  given  of  this  rather 
obscure  passage. 


HISTORY   OF  THE    NOTION   OP   A   "  RKIGN  OP   LAW."       129 

worship  of  Mr.  E.  W.  Emerson,  or  the  only  less 
extravagant  admiration  of  some  Christian  writers, 
will  be  astonished  at  this  gross  polytheism  ;  but  their 
surprise  will  pass  away  as  we  proceed  in  this  investi- 
gation. 

In  truth  Plato,  as  also  his  master  Socrates,  was  a 
pagan,  though  with  some  ideas  of  the  Divine  far 
above  most  of  his  countrymen.  He  was  also  a  man 
of  very  uncommon  quickness  and  strength  of  mind. 
He  had  travelled  into  far  countries  in  search  of  wise 
men  and  of  new  ideas  :  certainly  to  Egypt,  perhaps 
to  Babylon  and  Persia.  No  doubt  he  had  learned 
the  doctrines  of  some  of  "the  wise  men  of  the  East," 
who  taught  that  there  was  but  one  God,  but  mixed 
this  with  various  errors  of  religion.  This  was  four 
hundred  years  before  any  of  the  I^ew  Testament  was 
written,  but  long  after  the  Old  was  complete.  We 
have  no  certain  knowledge  that  these  holy  books  of 
those  who  were  at  least  known  to  the  inquisitive 
Greeks  as  the  singular  little  nation  of  monotheists 
called  Jews,  had  come  into  their  hands.  Yery  likely 
they  had  learned  something  of  the  religious  ideas  of 
the  Jews  as  well  as  of  the  Hindoos  from  the  Egypt- 
ians or  Babylonians,  and  were  not  uninformed  of  the 
mono-  (or  duo-)  theism  of  the  Persians.  And  so  from 
Israel  rather  than  from  their  own  deep  thinking 
they  really  got  what  idea  they  had  of  One  God  and 
of  His  true  character.  And  yet  this  was  mixed  with 
a  vast  deal  of  heathenish  religion  and  false  philosophy. 

For  all  of  old  Israel  lived  in  a  far  greater  light  of 
truth  than  the  wisest  Brahmin,  Persian  or  Athenian 


130        THE  REIGN   OP    GOD   NOT    "THE   REIGN   OP   LAW." 

philosopher.  What  Abraham  or  Job  knew  b}^  pure 
tradition  from  Adam,  or  by  visions  from  Jehovah,  and 
what  of  such  truth  the  men  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
had  besides  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  was  as 
breaking  day  to  moonless  and  almost  starless  mid* 
night,  compared  with  the  highest  thoughts  in  re- 
ligion of  all  the  heathen  world. 

It  was  a  strange  perversity  in  men  to  whom 
"oracles  of  God"  were  given,  that  some  ambitious 
Jews  while  captives  in  heathen  Babylon,  began  to 
stud}^  the  false  notions  of  that  people,  and  of  the 
Hindoos  and  Persians,  and  to  mix  these  with  their 
true  knowledge  of  God.  The  beginning  of  "  philo- 
sophy and  vain  deceit"  among  the  Jews  dates  from 
that  time,  as  shown  in  the  "Cabbala"  and  "Talmud" 
and  such  writings.  And  so  during  the  succeeding 
600  years  they  imparted  some  ideas  to  the  Greeks  and 
copied  some  notions  from  them.  The  nations  were 
all  becoming  mingled  as  never  before  by  the  wars  of 
those  times,  and  the  subjection  of  all  the  others  by 
the  Romans.  In  the  meantime  Aristotle,  who  came 
just  after  Plato,  and  was  more  practical  and  consis- 
tent, though  a  less  entertaining  writer,  had  already 
made  it  a  fashion  of  philosophy  to  talk  about 
"Nature."  This  meant  much  the  same  as  it  does  m 
common  use  in  our  day,  i.  e.  all  the  world  and  life 
outside  of  us,  as  if  it  Avere  a  vast  order  which  existed 
and  lived  and  moved  (at  least  as  far  as  we  knew  or 
need  think)  of  itself.  So  the  very  phrase  "laws  of 
Nature"  begins  to  appear  in  the  Latin  poets."^ 

*  Diigald  Stewart,  Ment.  Phil.  (Sir  W.  Hamilton's  ed.)  1. 158-1(52. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   NOTION   OF   A   "  REIGN   OF   LAW."       131 

Yet  there  was  no  such  distinct  assertion  of  a 
''  reign  of  law  "  as  we  have  now.  A  God  or  gods 
were  supposed  to  govern  aH  things.  There  was  a 
certain  collection  of  writings  extant  then  and  already 
translated  into  Greek,  which  spoke  in  thousands  of 
places  of  the  One  True  God  immediately  doing  all 
things.*  We  may  now  mention  this,  not  adducing 
it  here  as  decisive  of  the  truth  (though  it  is  so),  but 
simply  as  a  fact  of  history  showing  that  the  idea  of 
"the  reign  of  God,"  the  contrary  of  the  other,  was 
known  to  some  men.  But  evidently  by  the  time  of 
Our  Lord's  advent,  the  more  intellectual  and  ambi- 
tious Jews  were  far  gone  from  this  truth  and  faith 
of  God,  through  their  studies  of  Greek  and  Oriental 
philosophies.  In  religious  opinion  they  were  strongly 
and  sternly  Unitarian,  abhorring  the  Greeks  for 
their  many  gods.  Yet  in  fact  and  spirit  they 
neglected  the  true  Word  of  the  one  God  committed 
to  them  alone  as  a  people,  and  "  went  a  whoring 
after  "  vain  inventions  of  pagans.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
that  in  this  the  irreligious  philosophy  joins  with  the 
false  religious  superstition.  Even  Mr.  G.  H.  Lewes, 
who  scorns  our  faith,  saysf  that  the  notion  of  forces 
acting  of  themselves  in  Nature  came  first  from  the 
deification  of  the  great  movements  which  men  ob- 
served. It  was  thus  with  the  Greeks,  whose  idea  of 
religion  for  ages  had  been  of  a  god  for  every  great 
object  or  movement  which  they  saw.  So  that  even 
when  Plato  came  to  the  conception  of  One  Supreme, 
he  still  held  to  the  many  inferior  deities,  and  assigned 

*  We  found  this  out  in  the  thorough  investigation  of  Chap.  VI. 
t  Lewes'  Aristotle,  p.  86. 


132  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT  "THE   KEIGN   OF   LAW." 

to  them  what  simply  belongs  to  the  Only  Eeal  and  True. 
Indeed,  thus  only  can  we  imagine  how  the  true  re- 
ligion of  primitive  man  had  sunk  into  the  grotesque 
and  hideous  idolatry  of  intellectual  Greece  and 
rational  Eome,  as  well  as  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world, 
except  little  Israel.  Even  if  we  believe  (as  have 
some  great  Christian  writers,  both  ancient  and 
modern,)  that  this  false  worship  is  described  by  Holy 
Scriptures  as  in  fact  that  of  evil  angels,*  this  deify- 
ing of  ''Nature"  and  its  **  forces "  may  still  be 
thought  the  intellectual  process  by  which  men  "de- 
parted from  the  living  God  "  to  these  other  religions. 
With  this  agrees  the  only  historical  account  which 
Holy  Scripture  gives  of  that  dreadful  degradation  of 
mankind.  For  in  the  famous  passage  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  is  so  much  misunder- 
stood and  misused,  describing  the  process  by  which 
they  thus  "changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,"  he 
says  that  "they  worshipped  and  served f  the  crea- 
tionX  more  than  the  Creator."  Add  to  this  that  it 
describes  them  as  those  who  "did  not  like  to  re- 
tain God  in  their  knowledge  "  in  the  sense  of  peni- 
tence, humility,  self-denying  obedience  and  devout 
love.  These  might  reject  idolatry,  wholly,  as  the 
Jewish  scribes  did,  or  partly  as  the  Greek  philo- 
sophers; but  they  also  would  see  all  real  power  in 
"Nature"  or  its  f  forces."  Thus  we  already  see  the 
two  false  tendencies  which  obscure  the  true  know- 
ledge of  God  —  from   opposite    directions,  yet  con- 

*1  Cor.  X.  20,  21. 

f 'E^.ai'partfaj',  i.  e.  gave  latria  or  dirinc  homage,  as  in  idolatry. 

Xl^ot  "creature,"  a8  in  the  A.  V. 


HISTORY   OP   THE  NOTION  OF   A   "REIGN   OF   LAW."        133 

verging  and  concurring  toftivor  the  notion  of  a  "reign 
of  law  ";  the  one  idolatrous  and  polytheistic,  the  other 
worldly  and  atheistic. 

Perhaps  there  already  appeared  also  a  reinforce- 
ment of  these  tendencies,  which  has  been  very 
powerful  in  modern  times,  the  (at  least  apparent) 
convenience  of  this  notion  for  scientific  research  and 
generalizing.  To  an  acute  man  like  Aristotle,  of  pagan 
birth  and  education,  who  has  set  himself  only  to 
learn  what  he  can  of  this  world,  it  was  very  natural 
to  personify  "  Nature,"  to  say  that  "  she  "  obeyed 
"laws  "  in  all  these  motions  :  to  imagine  this  really 
all  the  Divine  that  we  really  know  of,  and  yet  treat 
it  as  a  vast  and  curious  self-acting  machine,  which 
w^e  are  to  study  and  understand  by  degrees.  Not 
far  removed  from  this  was,  and  by  almost  irresistible 
transitions  indeed  proceeded,  the  atheism  of  some  of 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  of  that  time,  especially 
displayed  in  the  elegant  poem  of  Lucretius,  Be 
Berum  Natura.  Remember  that  all  this  was  of  "  the 
wisdom  of  this  world,"  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his 
famous  sentences  about  that,  without  excepting  an}^ 
of  it  from  his  censure. 

Then  rose  upon  mankind  a  sun  of  spiritual  light,  in 
which  even  the  illumination  of  Israel  was  but  little 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  "  darkness  "  in  which 
sat  every  other  people  in  the  world.  The  Word  of 
God  was  present  upon  earth  as  a  man.  What  He 
said  as  remembered  and  recorded  ;  what  He  did  for 
a  complete  redemption  of  "the  whole  world";  what 
His  Apostles  and  other  ministers  said  and  wrote  ia 
12 


134  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  KEIGN   OP   LAW." 

books  of  the  New  Testament,  "  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  ";  what  that  Third  One  of  the 
adorable  Trinity  of  God  has  said  through  the  per- 
petual Church  in  all  the  ages  since, — this  is  pure  and 
complete  light  of  truth  in  religion.  We  all  know 
that  this  light  was  not  to  shine  at  once  upon  all 
mankind,  but  to  follow  a  growth  of  extension  by  the 
Church,  from  one  small  tract  of  the  world,  until  the 
earth  should  be  full  of  this  knowledge,  or  the  Lord 
should  consummate  all  by  a  second  appearance  among 
mankind  as  the  universal  sovereign. 

But  who  (except  as  he  sees  the  like  done  in  our 
days)  would  suppose,  that  men  upon  whom  this 
heavenly  truth  did  shine,  would  wish  to  interpret  or 
improve  it  by  the  writings  of  any  groping  pagan  of 
a  former  age  ?  A  Christian  might,  e.  g.,  admire 
Plato's  elegant  language,  the  entertaining  wit  with 
which  he  leads  his  reader  along  through  the  most 
abstract  reasoning,  and  even  the  flash  of  some  great 
thought  of  goodness  or  of  the  Divine,  which  appeared 
in  the  midst  of  much  superstition  and  other  spiritual 
darkness.  For  this  he  might  well  adore  Him  who 
not  only  gave  to  Plato  the  glimpse,  but  to  himself 
such  light  of  day,  for  his  ill  use  of  which  he  meekly 
repented  before  God.  He  might  humbly  and  lov- 
ingly pity  those  who  did  thus  ^' feel  after  God  "  in 
the  dark  lands  and  days.  But  could  he  actually 
study  the  pagan  writers  as  intellectual  and  spiritual 
masters  in  the  knowledge  of  God's  Word? 

Some  may  say,  that  he  must  be  very  narrow- 
minded  who  would  not  learn  the  beautiful  teachings 


HISTOET   OP   THE   NOTION   OF   A   "REIGN   OF   LAW."        135 

of  Prof.  Tyndall  about  light  (physical)  because  he  is  so 
wrong  in  his  notions  of  religion.  Why  then  might 
not  a  wise  Christian  avail  himself  of  whatever  truth 
heathen  philosophers  had  written  ?  Ought  he  not 
to?  Would  not  neglect  to  do  it  bring  just  reproach 
upon  the  true  religion,  and  even  be  the  cause  that 
the  more  spiritual  and  intelligent  pagans  would 
never  come  to  that  light  of  the  Gospel  ? 

In  answer  to  this  we  ought  to  consider  first,  that 
the  Greek  philosophy  knew  almost  nothing  of  "  sci- 
ence "  in  the  modern  sense.  It  rather  held  such 
knowledge  in  contempt.  All  that  a  man  would 
learn  by  the  study  of  Plato  (beyond  some  idle  or 
mischievous  fancies)  would  be  certain  speculations 
upon  the  beginning  and  cause  and  continuance  of  all 
things  —  the  nature  of  man's  soul,  its  duty  and 
destiny.  These  are  essentially  religious  questions. 
They  are  answered  truly,  and  as  fully  as  we  can 
comprehend  them,  b}'  the  Word  of  God.  To  construe 
that,  or  try  to  improve  upon  it  by  the  groping 
guesses  of  a  heathen  man,  brought  up  in  idolatry 
and  practising  it  in  some  measure  all  his  life,  and 
low  in  much  of  his  actual  moral  conduct,  could  not 
but  be  irrational.  When  we  know  that  he  also  in 
these  fine  speculations  rather  taught  that  matter 
was  eternal,  was  only  shaped  and  set  in  motion 
(not  created)  by  the  Supreme  One,  and  had  been 
always  since  kept  in  motion  and  controlled  by  a 
number  of  lower  gods, — then  surely  this  study  of 
Plato  by  Christians  could  only  *«  darken  "  the  bright 
''counsel"  of  God  by  misleading  "words"  (of  intel- 
lectual ambition)  "  without  (real)  knowledge." 


136  THE    KEIGN   OF   GoD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

And  so  it  did  in  fjxct.  The  Lord  had  set  up  a 
society  of  all  believers  in  Him  which  should  endure  as 
long  as  the  world,  and  should  proclaim  His  Gospel  to 
every  soul  of  mankind.  Some  men  joined  this  society 
in  the  first  ages  who  were  not  only  acquainted  with 
the  philosophies,  but  began  to  try  and  state  the 
faith  of  the  Church  in  that  language,  or  even  accord- 
ing to  those  systems  of  thought.  They  may  have 
fancied  they  were  thus  beautilying  or  adding  to  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel.  With  some  it  may  have  been  a 
fancy  that  this  would  bring  honor  to  the  Church, 
and  draw  other  intellectual  men  into  it.  With  others 
it  may  have  been  that  they  were  unwilling  to  give 
up  the  flattering  suj^eriority  over  their  fellow-men 
which  knowledge  of  the  "  ffo<pio. "  (wisdom)  or 
^'' ^doGoifia''  (love  of  wisdom),  or  ^^yvioi^^'  (know- 
ledge), of  the  Greeks  or  of  the  rationalizing  Jews, 
seemed  to  imply. 

One  of  the  AjDostles  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  notice,  was  by  previous  study  and  experience, 
acquainted  with  this  philosophy  so  as  to  observe  its 
first  appearance  among  Christians.  We  find  that  he 
spoke  of  it  in  writing  his  wise  counsels  to  the  Church 
at  Corinth  about  tvventj^-five  years  after  the  Ascen- 
sion of  Our  Lord  (and  also  by  inspiration  inditing 
God's  Word  to  all  mankind).  Bemember  that  this 
epistle  was  written  to  Greeks  in  one  of  the  richest 
and  most  ambitious  cities  of  that  land.  It  is  true 
that  a  considerable  part  of  that  church  was  made  up 
of  Israelites  engaged  in  trade  at  Corinth.  St.  Paul 
takes   notice   of  some    of  their   Jewish   prejudices. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION   OF   A   "  REIGN  OF  LAW."       137 

But  none  the  less  would  they  as  well  as  the  native 
Corinthians  understand  what  he  said  of  ^^  (jocpia^^  to 
mean  the  philosophies  of  Plato  and  others.  If  then 
he  had  meant  to  allow  at  all,  much  more  to  applaud 
(as  some  Christian  writers  do  now),  the  use  of  this 
philosoph}^  in  religious  thought,  and  only  to  guard 
against  some  possible  misuse  of  it,  he  would  (rather 
God  who  spoke  His  Word  by  him,  would)  have  so 
said  distinctly. 

He  was  censuring  divisions  or  parties  among  them 
caused  by  their  mixing  other  notions  with  the  pure 
Christian  truth.  I  give  the  words  [1  Cor.  i.,  &c.] 
more  precisely  as  they  would  have  come  to  the  minds 
of  the  Corinthians,  than  our  excellent  A.  Y.  expresses 
it.  "Christ  sent  me  ...  .  to  proclaim  the  Grospel, 
not  with  philosophy"  of  speech  {ao(pia  Xoyou),  lest  the 
cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of  none  effect.  For 
the  speech  (A^yo^)  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that  perish 
foolishness;  but  unto  us  who  are  saved  it  is  the 
power  of  God.  For  it  is  written,  I  will  destroy  the 
philosoph}^  {(70(pia)  of  the  sages,  and  I  will  bring  to 
nothing  the  intelligence  of  the  intellectual.  Where 
is  the  sage?  Where  is  the  writer?  Where  is  the 
disputant  of  this  world  ?  Hath  not  God  convicted 
of  folly  the  philosophy  of  this  world?  For  after 
that  in  the  (true)  wisdom  of  God  the  world  by 
philosophy  (its  false  wisdom)  knew  not  God,  God 
was  graciously  pleased  by  (what  the  world  of  philo- 
sophy fancied)  the  foolishness  of  the  proclamation 
(of  His  Gospel)  to  save  those  believing  it.  While 
also  the  Jews  demand  a  sign  from  heaven,  and  the 


138  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW. 

Greeks  seek  for  philosophy,  we  proclaim  Christ 
crucified  —  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  to  the 
Greeks  foolishness,  but  to  the  chosen  ones,  Jews  and 
Greeks   alike,   Christ    the   power   of    God   and    the 

wisdom  of  God  (vs.  17-24) For  you  see  the 

choice  of  you  brethren,  that  not  many  wise  (in  a 
worldly  sense),  not  many  mighty,  not  many  high- 
born are  chosen.  But  God  hath  elected  the  foolish 
things  of  the  world  to  put  down  the  sages,  and 
weak  things  of  the  world  has  God  chosen  to  put 
to  shame  the  strong.  And  low-born  things  of  the 
world  and  things  despised  hath  God  chosen,  etc. 
.  .  .  .    But  from  Him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who 

has  become  to  us  (real)  wisdom  of  God,  etc 

that  according  as  it  is  written,  He  that  glorieth,  let 
him  glory  in  the  Lord."  (vs.  26-31.) 

"And  I,  brethren,  coming  to  you,  came  not  with 
pre-eminence  in  manner  of  speaking  or  philosophy 
{(To<fia)  declaring  unto  you  the  testimony  of  God. 
....  And  my  familiar  speech  and  my  procla- 
mation of  the  Gospel  were  not  in  persuasive  words 
of  human  philosophy,  but  in  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  power ;  that  your  faith  should  not  be 
in  the  philosophy  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God, 
Howbeit  we  are  speaking  of  (real)  wisdom  among 
the  mature,  j^et  not  the  philosophy  {<jo(pia)  of  this 
age,  nor  of  its  mas-ters  who  pass  away.  But  we  are 
speaking  of  wisdom  of  God  hidden  in  mystery, 
which  God  ordained  before  the  ages  for  our  honor, 
which  not  one  of  the  masters  of  this  age  knew  ;  for 
had   they  known  it  they  would  not  have  crucified 


HISTORY   OF    THE   NOTION   OF   A  "  REIGN   OF   LAW."       139 

the  Lord  of  glory For  what  man   know- 

eth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  the  man 
which  is  in  him  :  even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth 
no  one  but  the  Spirit  of  God.  Now  we  have 
received  not  the  spirit  (inspiration)  of  the  world 
(xvatioc;)  (the  world's  spirit  may  know  the  world's 
things),  but  the  spirit  (inspiration)  which  is  from 
God,  that  we  might  know  the  things  which  are 
freely  given  to  us  of  God;  which  things  we  speak 
not  in  the  words  which  man's  philosophy  teacheth, 
but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  comparing 
spiritual  things  with  spiritual.  But  the  natural  * 
man  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  they  are  foolishness  to  him,  and  he  cannot  know 
them  because  they  are  onlj^  spiritually  to  be  discerned 
(not  by  intellectual  exertion,  but  by  our  souls 
obediently  receiving  knowledge  of  them  from  God), 
But  he  that  is  (in  that  way)  spiritual  judgeth  all, 
but  he  himself  is  judged  by  no  one.  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  may  instruct 
Him?  But  we  possess  (by  His  gift  of  grace  to  us) 
the  mind  of  Christ."  (ii). 

In  quoting  the  entire  passage  so  that  my  read- 
ers may  form  a  just  judgment  of  the  writer's 
real  meaning,  I  have  only  for  the  sake  of  brevity, 
omitted  (at  the  places  indicated  .  .  .)  a  few  sen- 
tences, which  would  rather  have  strengthened  the 
effect  of  the  whole  as  now  o-iven.  But  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  verbal  allusions  and  antitheses  which 

*That  is,  man  fallen  from  the  original  image  of  God  ;  (that  is,  perfect 
love  of  Him,  which  includes  the  spirit  of  perfect  obedience),  and  with 
only  his  intellectual  apprehension,  however  quick  and  bright  that  may 
be. 


140  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

were  plainly  in  St.  Paul's  mind,  and  to  show  pre- 
cisely what  he  so  strongly  condemned,  I  have  had 
with  regret  to  change  in  a  few  places  the  excellent 
language  of  our  English  Bible,  but  not  at  all  to 
another  sense.  The  word  aocpia  occurring  fourteen 
times  in  the  Authorized  Version  as  *'  wisdom,"  is  the 
very  favorite  term  used  by  the  G-reeks  for  their 
philosophy,  which  they  claimed  to  be  the  only  wise 
discourse  about  the  Divine,  and  its  works,  and  the 
duties  of  men.  And  so  I  render  it  when  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  men's  pretended  knowledge  of  Divine 
things.  When  it  denotes  God's  Word  to  us  about 
these  things,  I  translate  it  as  what  it  is,  perfect 
''wisdom."  So  with  aowoi,  meaning  those  who 
claimed  to  have  gained  this  knowledge  by  their 
reason  ;  I  name  them  "  philosophers  "  or  "  sages." 
The  like  method  is  used  in  the  other  variations  from 
the  words  of  our  generally  admirable  authorized 
translation.  Thus  we  get  what  St.  Paul  said  just 
as  he  meant  it  for  the  Corinthians  and  as  they 
understood  him. 

Observe  then,  first,  that  his  condemnation  of  all 
this  ao(pia  of  men  is  without  qualification,  and  with- 
out exception.  He  does  not  say,  *'  Epicurus  is  bad, 
but  Aristotle  excellent:  beware  of  the  Stoics,  but 
study  the  Academics  (or  Platonists)."  He  does  not 
say,  like  some  now,  "  take  no  notice  of  the  supersti- 
tions of  the  philosophers,  trifling  mistakes  which  ad- 
hered to  them  from  their  less  enlightened  age ;  but 
admire  and  use  their  acute  speculations  upon  the 
making  and  order  of  the  world,  upon  the  human  soul 


HISTORY   OF    THE   NOTION   OF   A    "  REIGN   OF  LAW."       141 

and  its  greatest  good.  Adjust  these  to  the  new 
doctrine  of  Christ,  or  rather,  interpret  it  by  them." 

Evidently  St.  Paul  thinks  that  they  who  have  the 
full  daylight  of  God's  Word  in  Himself*  its  Gospel, 
would  only  bewilder  themselves  by  the  dim  lanterns 
of  the  philosophers:  that  they  cannot  learn  anything 
from  such  masters  without  entering  the  region  of 
religious  thought,  and  that  following  them  there  is  to 
go  away  from  truth  and  toward  error  in  religion. 
And  BO  men  cannot  know  the  things  of  God  except 
as  He  directly  reveals  them.  God  had  made  such  a 
revelation  to  these  men  of  Corinth  by  him  and  his 
fellow  Apostles  and  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  would 
not  only  not  add  to  this  Divine  knowledge  for  them 
to  mix  with  it  the  philosophy  of  heathen  men,  or  of 
any  men,  but  this  would  obscure  the  heavenly  light 
and  mislead  them.  It  would  certainly  promote  that 
very  self-sufficiency  and  vanity  which  it  is  the 
greatest  interest  and  only  true  glory  of  men  to  rid 
themselves  of,  in  glad  devotion  to  the  ever  blessed 
God.  "  That  according  as  it  is  written,  he  that 
glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."f 

I  do  not  know  how  this  can  be  otherwise  under- 
stood by  candid  Christians,  unless  they  can  show 
either,  first,  that  (7o<fta  was  not  the  very  term  used  and 
understood  to  represent  the  speculations  of  the 
"  philosophers,"  or  secondly,  that  Plato  and  Aristotle 
were  entirely  unknown  to  St.  Paul  or  expressl}^  ex- 
cepted  by  him   from   his   censure;    or  thirdly,  that 

*  "  The  Word  was  God."—  St.  Jolin  i.  1. 

t  The  same  grand  and  generous  truth  recurs  soon  after  in  Chap.  iii. 
18-23. 


142  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW. 


there  is  nothing  in  their  writings  which  touches 
questions  of  religion  at  all ;  or  fourthly,  that  Chris- 
tians following  those  philosophers  were  then,  or  in 
later  ages,  or  are  now,  safe  from  the  spiritual  harm 
(for  which  no  intellectual  advantage  could  make 
amends)  of  falling  thereby  into  a  vainglorious  self- 
conceit,  which  would  cloud  their  faith  and  chill  their 
love  ;  or  finally,  which  neither  I  nor  those  whom  I 
address  can  proj^erly  suppose, —  that  they  under- 
stand the  real  interest  of  God's  truth  better  than  he 
who  wrote  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 
Some  one,  or  really  rather  all  of  these  things  must  be 
proved  to  allow  of  any  Christian's  following  a  notion 
of  Plato  or  Aristotle  in  questions  any  way  bearing 
upon  our  faith  in  or  our  understanding  of  God's 
Word. 

But  we  have  positive  proof  that  St.  Paul's  mind 
had  been  turned  before  he  wrote  the  words  in  ques- 
tion to  this  very  error  of  the  Greek  philosophy :  its 
claiming  to  tell  how  the  Divine  power  made  and 
moves  the  universe,  and  its  suggestion  of  forces  or 
laws  of  Nature.  When  he  came  to  Corinth  first,  five 
or  six  years  before  the  above  letter  was  written,  he 
came  direct  from  Athens,  but  a  day's  journey  distant, 
which  might  be  called  the  city  of  the  philosophers. 
While  there  only  as  a  waiting  traveller,  "certain 
j^hilosophers  .  .  .  encountered  him,"  and  from  mere 
curiosity  to  know  what  "  this  babbler"  would  saj"  — 
this  barbarian  with  a  new  religion,  as  they  would  only 
regard  an  Oriental  Jew, —  drew  him  into  a  public 
discussion.     In  this  he  went  at  once  into  some  of  the 


HISTORY   OF   THE   NOTION   OF   A   "  KEIGN   OF   LAW."        143 

chief  questions  which  all  of  these  philosophers,  and 
noiably  the  famous  Athenian  Plato,  had  claimed  to 
answer:  i.  e.,  about  the  First  Cause  of  all  things,  and 
how  He  maintains  all  that  exists.  Yet  while  ready 
to  make  use  of  any  pleasing  allusion  (even  to  their 
false  worship)  which  may  incline  these  Athenians  to 
receive  the  Divine  truth  he  has  to  teach,  he  does  not 
use  or  make  any  sort  of  allusion  to  Plato's  philo- 
sophy. He  does  not  put  forth  this  philosophic 
notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  "  claimed  by  some  as  one 
of  Plato's  great  thoughts,  and  in  a  measure  implied 
in  his  writings;  though  if  it  were  true,  he  could  in 
his  actual  argument  hardly  fail  to  do  so.  What  he 
does  say,  as  it  seems  to  me,  plain Ij^  forbids  that  notion. 
Thus:  "God  that  made  the  world  and  all  thintrs 
therein  .  .  .  giveth  *  to  all  life  and  breath  and  all 
things  .  .  .  though  He  be  not  far  from  every  one 
of  us;  for  in  Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being."! 

But  this,  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  is 
not  all  that  St.  Paul  had  to  say  of  the  philosophy  of 
his  age.  Four  years  after  that  was  written,  per- 
ceiving that  he  was  drawing  near  the  end  of  his 
"course,"  and  "good  fight"  of  the  faith,  he  sent 
out  several  other  letters  to  churches  and  persons. 
These  epistles  express  all  the  matureness  of  his  ex- 
perience and  thought,  and  have  the  special  solemnity 
of  a  concern  for  those  to  whom  he  would  speak  for 
the  last  time.  The  man  and  the  Apostle  were  anxious 
and  careful  for  that  pure    truth    of  God  which    he 

*'''  Giveth,^'  not  gave. 

+  See  also  Eom.  xi;  1  Cor.  viii.  6;  Col.  i.  l(j,  17;  Rev.  ir.  11. 


144         THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP   LAW." 

might  soon  no  longer  defend  among  men.  We  may 
say  this  with  truth  of  Paul,  the  good  and  great  man, 
even  though  it  were  not,  as  it  is,  the  chief  fact,  that 
in  these  epistles  God  speaks  directly  to  mankind  by 
inspiration.  Thus  did  the  Holy  Ghost  foresee,  and 
provide  in  them  such  warnings  as  the  Church  would 
need  in  all  ages. 

One  of  these  epistles  is  written  to  the  church  at 
Colosse,  and  in  it  is  this  sentence  :  "  Beware  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit, 
after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the 
world  and  not  of  Christ." — [Col.  ii.  8].  As  the  term 
"  philosophy  "  was  so  well  known  to  St.  Paul,  as 
describing  to  all  who  spoke  or  read  Greek  in  that 
age,  the  writings  of  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  other  such 
speculators,  he  would  surely  use  it  in  that  sense. 
He  already  knew  this  philosophy  well  as  hindering 
the  Gospel,  and  had  long  before  been  anxious  about 
this  effect  of  it.  So  also  the  Spirit  of  God  intending 
these  holy  writings  for  all  the  ages,  would  use  the 
term  in  this  its  simple  meaning.  What  is  said  by 
way  of  description  of  the  philosophy,  corres2:)onds  also 
with  what  the  same  writer  wrote  to  the  Corinthians. 
It  is  something  which  professes  to  improve  by  human 
thought,  upon  what  God  has  directly  spoken  to  men. 
It  is  "after  the  tradition  (/.  e.  by  the  communication) 
of  men,"  who,  however  ingenious  and  eloquent  they 
may  be  about  inferior  matters,  can  only  speak  "  vain 
deceits," — perhaps  deluding  themselves  as  well  as 
others  when  they  profess  to  discover  from  the 
"elements  of  this  world," — from  their  weak  conject- 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION   OF   A  "REIGN  OF  LAW."       145 

ures  and  self-sufficient  arguments,  something  about 
God  and  His  ways. 

After  this  censure  of  philosophy,  St.  Paul  proceeds 
to  tell  the  Colossean  Christians  how  great  and  suffi- 
cient is  the  knowledge  of  spiritual  things  given  us 
by  the  Word  of  (xod,  and  especially  as  Our  Lord 
spoke  in  person  and  in  all  His  life  and  His  royal 
power  now.  Then  he  answers  them,  that  neither 
need  they  regard  what  any  of  their  visiting  fellow- 
Christians  might  insist  upon  about  strictly  keeping 
the  old  law  of  Moses.  It  seems  probable  from  this; 
that  some  such  visitors  had  come  to  Colosse.  And 
so  he  connects  this  with  his  warning  against  the 
Greek  philosophy,  as  being  indeed  of  the  same  real 
origin  in  the  intellectual  vanity  of  men.  He  describes 
them  all  alike,  as  "  intruding  into  those  things  which 
they  have  not  seen,  vainly  puffed  up  by  their  fleshly 
mind."     [v.  18]. 

We  read  the  same  thought  in  his  first  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  written  a  year  later,  especially  at  the  end 
of  it,  where  he  charges  that  bishop  after  his  death  to 
keep  the  Word  of  God  safe  from  mixture  with 
"  oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called."  [1  Tim. 
vi.  18]. 


13 


146  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW. 


CHAPTEK  IX. 
History — Continued. 

ABOUT  a  hundred  years  later,  all  the  Apostles 
having  long  since  died,  we  find  some  accepted 
writers  among  the  Christians  praising,  and  in  part 
following,  the  Greek  philosophers.  The  writings  of 
Plato  were  the  most  used  in  this  way,  because  he 
seemed  to  say  sc^me  Christian  things,  (as  e.  g.  of  One 
Supreme  G-od,  to  know  whom  was  the  greatest  glory 
and  felicity  of  man).  His  Christian  admirers  declared 
that  Plato  and  the  other  philosophers  were  indeed 
at  the  best  far  from  the  light  of  God  in  the  Gospel ; 
knew  nothing  of  a  great  part  of  that  truth,  and  the 
rest  of  it  but  partially  and  doubtfully.  But  instead 
of  following  the  counsel  of  St.  Paul  and  using  only 
the  better  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  God,  they  per- 
sisted in  an  attempt  to  explain  and  improve  upon 
this,  by  that  which,  if  it  had  any  value,  was  far 
inferior.  Their  best  reason  should  have  told  them 
that  this  was  not  wise ;  but  it  was  even  more  con- 
trary to  that  Word  of  God. 

The  motives  of  even  good  men  are  often  so  com- 
plex that  we  can  only  guess  at  them.  But  we  may 
fairly  suppose  that  these  Christian  admirers  of 
philosophy  thought  this  the  best  way  to  resist  those 
who  argued  out  of  the  philosophers  for  false  doctrine, 
or  against  all  the  Christian  faith  ;  and  that  they 
supposed  they  were  "  adorning  the  doctrine  of  God 
Our  Saviour "  with  these  so  famous  names.    Some 


HISTORY  OF   THE  NOTION   OF  A   "REIGN  OF  LAW."       147 

(as  Justin  Martyr,  excellent  in  many  ways)  had 
been  "  philosophers  "  before  they  were  Christians, 
and  retained  some  of  their  former  admiration  for 
Plato  and  some  party  spirit  as  his  followers.  Along 
with  this  perhaps  were  some  remains  of  a  vanity  of 
reading  and  intelligence  superior  to  that  of  their 
plainer  fellow-Christians. 

Fifty  years  later,  Clement  of  Alexandria  writes 
with  even  more  admiration  of  the  philosophers  and 
devotion  to  them.  This  is  a  natural  result  of  the 
first  departure  from  Christian  good  sense  and  obe- 
dience mentioned  above.  It  shows  how  any  use  of 
the  mere  speculations  of  ingenious  men  who  lived 
and  died  in  heathen  darkness,  along  with  the  bright 
Divine  light,  could  only  obscure  that  light  to  us. 
To  mingle  such  men's  reasonings  with  the  actual 
Word  of  God,  and  construe  it  by  them,  even  with 
the  most  laborious  effort  to  separate  their  heathen 
errors  from  their  best  sayings,  could  do  it  no  pos- 
sible good,  and  would  lead  Christians  aside  from  the 
truth.  Thus  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the  next 
generation  went  astray  in  the  same  direction  still 
farther  than  Justin  Martyr.  And  so  did  Clement's 
pupil,  the  noble,  brilliant  and  pious  Origen,  fall  into 
yet  worse  errors  than  his  master.*     Still  there  were 

*It  ia  true  that  all  these,  Justin  Martyr  to  begin  with,— affirming 
truly  that  Our  Lord  is  the  source  of  all  light,— declared  that  He  must 
have  revealed  it  in  a  measure  to  Socrate?  and  Plato.  This  is  true  in  the 
sense  that  they  (and  we)  should  acknowledge  His  goodness  in  all  know- 
ledge. But  it  is  no  reason  why  we  should  go  to  pagans  to  learn  His  truth 
or  to  interpret  His  Woi^  Written.  The  humblest  Christian  laborer  in 
Alexandria  was  more  '•  taught  of  God  '  than  Plato.  But  for  all  that,  did 
Clement  or  Origen  ever  go  to  such  a  man  to  explain  Holy  Scripture  ?  If 
Milner's  Ch.  History  had  no  other  merit  (which  is  far  from  true),  it 
deserves  praise  above  any  other  within  my  knowledge  for  its  plain  words 
about  this  false  philosophy.— [See  Miln.  Ch.  Hiet.  1.,  Cent.  II.,  chaps. 
8  and  9,  &c.] 


148        THE   BEIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 


at  this  ver}^  time  some  plain  and  wise  pastors  of  the 
Church  who  protested  against  this  folly  and  recalled 
the  warnings  of  St.  Paul  *  But  the  others  were  the 
more  skilful  writers,  and  had  in  their  favor  with  all 
the  ambitious,  even  with  many  private  persons  who 
flattered  themselves  by  agreeing  with  the  famous, — 
the  influence  of  intellectual  vanity. 

The  wrong  tendency  upon  the  whole  kept  increas- 
ing. The  Christian  religion  became  more  and  more 
that  of  the  majority,  and  especially  that  of  the 
refined,  the  scholarly,  and  the  ambitious.  Were 
some  of  these  true,  humble,  obedient  believers  ?  They 
were  still  beset  by  the  temptation  to  mix  their  read- 
ing of  the  elegant  pagan  writers  of  Old  Athens  and 
Kome  with  the  Christian  doctrines.  Nor  were  their 
studies  outside  of  Christian  writings  confined  to 
these.  All  the  crowd  of  religious  notions  from  India, 
Persia,  Egypt,  and  the  un-Christian  Jews  (whose 
Talmud  and  Mishna  were  the  Hebrew  philosophy), 
which  had  zealous  teachers  and  cherished  writings — 
all  were  eagerly  studied.  Their  fancy  and  ambition 
was  to  make  all  these  tributary  to  the  pure  truth  of 
God,  taught  by  His  Church.  The  real  efl'ect  was  to 
obscure  that  truth  to  themselves  and  to  those  whom 
they  taught. 

Certainly  surpassed  by  no  other  of  these  Christian 
writers  was  the  great  Augustine,  whose  personal 
efforts  and  influence  then,  and  in  every  age  since 
his  powerful  writings,  have  done  so  much  for  the 
Church.     Yet  even    he  promoted   this  error  by  his 

*  Among  others  Hippolytus,  and  later  Epiphanius  and  ChryBoetom. 


HISTORY  OP  THE   NOTION   OF  A  "  RKIGN  OF  LAW."       149 

ambitious  study  and  extravagant  praise  of  Plato. 
So  also  he  speaks  incidentally  of  "  Nature  "  and  its 
'*  laws."  Yet  in  the  same  writings*  we  find  plain 
statements  of  the  immediate  power  of  God  in  all 
things  natural  or  supernatural,  such  as  we  might 
expect  from  his  penetrating  spiritual  and  devout 
mind. 

Chrysostom,  a  Greek  himself,  and  so  understanding 
the  danger  better,  cites  the  divine  warning  against 
vain  philosophy  without  making  any  exception  of 
Plato  and  Aristotle.f  So  also  Jerome  sets  forth  the 
plain  teaching  of  God's  Word,  as  to  His  incessant 
present  power, — however  in  other  places  he  may 
negligently  use  the  opposite  language  of  the  philo- 
sophers.J  These  two  living  in  the  same  age  with 
Augustine,  are  scarcely  inferior  to  him  among  the 
great  Christian  Doctors. 

On  the  other  hand  when,  as  might  often  happen 
then  as  well  as  now,  writers  were  Christians  by  pro- 
fession who  were  not  so  in  heart,  they  remained  the 
same  worldly,  ambitious  philosophers  which  they 
may  have  been  before,  and  only  attired  their  opinions 
as  such  in  a  sort  of  Christian  language,  and  tried  to 
pass  them  off  for  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

But  not  long  after  this  all  the  ambition  of  scholars 

*"Si  Dei  bonitas  se  rebus  sustrahat,  ad  nihilum  relabcntur,"  x. 
(Mignet)  858.  "If  the  goodness  of  God  should  withdraw  itself  from 
things  they  would  fall  back  into  nothing."  "  Dei  potentia  et  Dei 
voluntas,  Deus  ipse  est.— Ea  est  causa  existentise,"  i.  736.  "  The  power 
of  God  and  the  will  of  God  are  God  himself.— That  is  the  cause  of 
existence."  "Semper  operatur  et  semper  quiescit,"  i.  868,  ii.  1554. 
"He  is  always  working  and  always  resting." 

t  Such  passages  of  St.  Chrysostom  are  well  known  to  readers  of  his 
sermons,  but  the  means  of  exact  reference  are  not  at  my  hand  as  I  wTite 
this. 

tOnSt.  Johnv.  17. 


150        THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 


and  writers,  as  well  as  almost  all  the  reading  and 
knowledge  of  God's  Written  Word,  perished  with  the 
Oreek  and  Eoman  Empires  when  they  were  over- 
thrown by  barbarians.  In  the  long  period  of  intel- 
lectual darkness  which  ensued  there  were  in  effect 
no  writers.  Those  were  "  Dark  Ages  "  not  only  for 
the  lack  and  disuse  of  books,  even  of  "the  Book  of 
Books,"  but  because  Christian  doctrine  as  taught  by 
the  pastors  of  the  Church  had  become  obscured  and 
perverted  by  notions  and  ceremonies  not  according 
to  the  Blessed  Grospel  of  Our  Lord. 

At  the  first  revival  of  ambitious  study  after  some 
four  hundred  years  of  such  darkness,  the  eager 
students  of  Europe  applied  themselves  to  some  Mo- 
hammedan writers,  who  having  found  in  the  con- 
quered libraries  of  the  East  copies  of  Aristotle's  books 
of  philosophy,  translated  them  and  adapted  them 
to  their  liking.  These  Saracen  students  were  men 
of  keen  intellects.  The  only  religion  they  knew  was 
that  false  one  of  the  Koran,  which  was  compounded 
of  parts  of  God's  Word  as  given  to  the  Israelites  and 
to  the  Church,  and  of  sayings  of  Mohammed  in  imi- 
tation of  that,  together  with  "blasphemous  fables" 
of  his  invention.  The  followers  of  the  Koran  were 
by  means  of  that  divine  truth  contained  in  it,  im- 
bued, and,  one  might  almost  say,  saturated  with  the 
thought  of  the  One  God  as  opposed  to  the  many  gods 
of  Pagans,  (and  also  alas!  as  this  polytheism  was  in 
a  measure  held  by  the  unfortunate  Christians  of 
those  Dark  Ages).  From  this  great  thought  some 
of  them  seem  to  have  ascended  to  its  companion 


HISTORY  OF  THE   NOTION  OF  A  "REIGN  OF  LAW."       151 

-truth,  that  God  now  and  always  does  all  things. 
-Such  was  Al  Gazel  of  Bagdad  in  the  eleventh  or 
twelfth  centuries.  His  book,  ''Destruction  of  the 
Philosophers,"  rebukes  the  irreligious  spirit  of  Plato, 
Aristotle  and  all  their  followers.  What  a  rebuke  to 
Christians  now !  careless  of  that  truth,  or  utterly 
blind  to  it  as  they  have  it  in  such  glorious  light  of 
the  Divine  Word  ! 

Others  of  the  Saracen  scholars  were  not  so  wise. 
Their  religion  neither  satisfied  their  intelligence  nor 
checked  their  doubts,  by  the  actual  Divine  power  of 
Truth  given  from  above,  and  so  above  men's  reason- 
ings. They  followed  the  acute  speculations  of  the 
Greek  writer  into  a  kind  of  theoretic  atheism,  (called 
pantheism  in  our  day,)  which,  when  charged  with  by 
their  fellow  Musselmen,  they  denied,  but  which  in 
the  writings  of  Averroes,  Avicenna,  etc.,  is  much  the 
same  as  that  of  Spinoza  four  or  five  hundred  years 
later.* 

*  Sir  William  Hamilton  seems  to  attribute  to  Averroes  in  his  work 
against  Al  Gazel,  (Destruotio  Dcstructionis)  the  same  ide^a  of  immediate 
Divine  power  as  was  maintained  by  the  latter.  But  I  cannot  understand 
his  quotations  in  that  sense,  and  take  Averroes  for  a  more  Aristotelian, 
—pantheist  and  atheist  at  that.  Sir  W.  H.  actually  names  Al  Gazel  as 
the  inventor  of  this  true  idea  of  God's  will  and  power  1— seeming  really 
to  imagine  that  nobody  had  ever  before  dreamed  of  what  he  thought 
such  a  strange  speculation.  This  is  a  strong  instance  of  the  blindness 
with  which  a  great  scholar  and  acute  reasoner,  because  pre-occupied  with 
some  other  notion,  can  overlook  what  is  in  "  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors"  under  his  eyes.  How  far  Al  Gazel  may  have  gone  in  denying 
human  Free  Will,  (as  Sir  W.  H.  seems  to  charge  him  with  doing,)  upon 
what  is  called  in  later  Metaphysics  the  theory  of  "  Occasional  Causes," 
is  not  so  plain.  It  would  be  very  natural  for  one  who  had  no  tietter 
religion.  Yet  I  have  never  read  in  mere  human  writing  a  nobler 
expression  of  wisdom  and  truth  about  that,  than  what  is  quoted  from 
him  by  one  of  his  own  religion,  in  a  curious  letter  cited  in  the  prelimin- 
ary discourse  of  Sales'  Koran,  p.  120 :  "  Ut  sapieutissimus  Sidi  Abo  Hamet 
Elgaceli,  {i.  e.  Dominus  Abu  Hamed  Al  Ghazeli)  affirmat  (cujus  spiritu 
Deus  concedat  gloriam !  Amen!)  sequentibus  verbis:  lia  abditum,  et 
2')rofundum,  et  abstrusmn  est  mtelligere  punctum  illud  Liberi  Arbitrii^—ut 
neque  characteres  ad  scribenduin  neque  ullce  rationes  ad  exprimendum  suffi- 
ciant,  et  otnnes  quotquot  dehac  re  loctiti  sunt  ha^serunt  confusi  in  ripa 
tanti  et  tarn  spaciosi  maris.'''' 


153  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

Christian  students  of  these  writings  rejected  their 
religious  notions  (as  they  distinguished  these),  with 
a  real  abhorrence.  They  used  the  books,  they  said, 
only  to  learn  the  logic  and  natural  historj- of  Aris- 
totle, which  they  had  not  in  the  Greek  original. 
They  meant  and  labored  with  that  logic  to  make  a 
treasury  and  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  For  this 
they  collected  and  arranged  under  different  heads, 
sentences  out  of  all  "  the  Fathers,"  that  is,  the 
accepted  Christian  writers  of  former  times.  As  all 
of  the  Fathers  down  to  Augustine's  day,  beside  their 
general  soundness  and  consent,  had  some  errors  and 
contradictions  j  and  those  later  than  he  were  more 
and  more  imbued  with  the  growing  false  doctrines, 
the  "  schoolmen "  argued  with  very  skilful  logic 
to  make  a  consistent  system  of  all  this,  and  make  it 
all  appear  to  accord  with  Holy  Scripture.  This  was 
"  rationalism  "  instead  of  simple  obedience  to  the 
Word  of  God.  In  the  same  way  they  appropriated 
from  the  Pagan  and  Mohammedan  philosophers  the 
unspiritual  and  mechanical  idea  of  "  Nature." 

Before  the  Reformation,  the  genuine  and  original 
writings  of  the  Greelc  philosophers  began  to  be 
brought  into  Western  Europe,  and  to  be  in  the  hands 
of  studious  men ;  for  there  were  then  beginning  to 
be  many  such  students  besides  monks.  Plato's  and 
Aristotle's  books  were  regarded  as  a  sort  of  Holy 
Scriptures  of  philosophy.  Parties  even  were  formed 
as  between  them.  Some  preferred  the  former  in  oppo 
sftion  to  the  monks,  who  knew  the  other  best  and 
admired  him.     But  another  reason  why  many  inde- 


HISTOKY  OF   THE   NOTIQN  OF   A   "REIGN   OF   LAW."        153 

pendent  thinkers  preferred  to  be  Platonists  was,  that 
Plato's  speculations  are  more  in  the  direction  of  re- 
ligion, and  seemed  to  promise  them  more  freedom, 
at  least  in  thought,  from  the  hard  and  arbitrary  and 
minute  system  of  dogma  which  then  passed  for  the 
Christian  faith. 

The  general  insurrection  of  men's  intelligence 
against  this  irrational  authority  in  philosophy  of  mere 
tradition,  gained  force  sooner  than  the  return  to 
Apostolic  and  Catholic  truth  of  religion.  Each  of 
these  contributed  much  to  the  force  and  success  of 
the  other  at  the  time.  But,  of  course  in  this  alliance 
the  latter  tended  to  go  beyond  truth  in  the  dangerous 
direction  of  intellectual  vanity.  Books  were  multi- 
plied by  new  writings  and  by  printing.  Students 
and  inventors  swarmed  in  all  the  countries  of  West- 
ern Europe.  "Philosophy"  began  to  consist,  not 
merely  of  arguments  about  how  this  great  universe 
came  to  be,  or  how  we  think  or  know  anything,  but 
of  the  wonderful  things  we  know  by  our  senses; 
about  animals,  plants  and  stars  ;  life,  disease,  and  all 
that  makes  up  our  present  "  natural  sciences."  The 
misty  talk  of  Plato  about  "  eternal  ideas,"  or  "  the 
soul  of  the  world";  or  of  Aristotle  about  "Nature" 
as  some  vast  thing  existing  in  a  sort  independent  of 
God,  (though  nominally  subject  to  Him,  and  possibly 
liable  sometimes  to  be  interfered  with  by  Him,)  was 
easily  adjusted  to  their  studies.  Unless  then  the 
students  were  very  careful  to  be  humble  and  devout 
Christians,  their  studies  tended  away  from  religion 
and  toward  presumption  and  unbelief. 


154  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "  THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

Some  of  the  modern  philosophers  were  men  of 
most  powerful  minds,  as  the  Pole  Copernicus,  the 
Italian  Galileo,  the  great  Englishman  Bacon,  and  the 
great  Frenchman  Des  Cartes.  These  are  but  a  few  of 
many  such  students  in  those  days,  some  others  per- 
haps equal  to  those  mentioned  :  all  striving  to  extend 
the  knowledge  of  the  sensible  universe,  and  to  invent 
new  contrivances  for  the  use  of  men.  Such  "men  of 
science"  have  been  continued  in  succession  since,  to 
our  day. 

It  early  became  the  general  fashion  with  these  to 
speak  of  "  Nature,"  and  of  what  they  discovered  as 
"laws  of  Nature."  It  was  convenient  for  such  in- 
vestigation. Many  of  the  most  famous  of  them  were 
devout  Christians,  who  had  no  thought  of  making 
difficulties  for  our  faith,  or  of  placing  their  greatest 
discoveries  upon  any  equal  ground  with  God's  Word. 
For  others  it  had  this  further  convenience,  that  it 
saved  them  from  speaking  or  thinking  of  the  Great 
God  ;  so  that  all  their  thoughts  might  be  only  busy 
with  their  ambitious  studies.  The  Church  theo- 
logians and  all  Christian  pastors  were  too  much  en- 
gaged in  their  controversies  of  doctrine  to  notice  this 
then  (or  since).  Even  when  it  was  displayed  in 
some  quarters  as  open  unbelief  of  God's  Word,  they 
did  not  seem  to  perceive  this  notion  of  "  laws  of 
Nature  "  at  its  root. 

Yet  some  great  voices  have  been  raised  against  it 
even  among  the  chief  philosophers.  Bacon,  whose 
merit  and  authority  among  them  is  excelled  by  no 
other,  if  it  do  not  excel  all  others,  is  rightly  one  of 


HISTORY  OP   THE  NOTION  OF  A   "REIGN  OF  LAW."       155 

our  witnesses ;  for  while  he  also  speaks  of  "  laws  of 
Nature,"  it  is  never  with  the  notion  which  is  now 
current,  of  an  automatic  mechanism.  All  such  ex- 
pressions as  used  by  him  are  not  those  cold  theories, 
but  rather  of  the  inimitabl}^  rich  and  beautiful  imagery 
in  which  he  clothes  dry  abstractions  without  o'b- 
scuring  them.  On  the  other  hand  he  expressly 
rejects  the  authority  of  Plato*  or  Aristotle.  But 
still  more,  he  begins  his  wonderful  opening  to  the 
human  mind  of  the  vast  future  of  discovery,  with  the 
declaration  of  a  humble  and  adoring  faith  in  the 
Word  of  God,  as  altogether  more  valuable  and  more 
certain  than  all  that  man  can  discover.  He  affirms 
the  innocence  and  value  of  science  if,  and  only  if,  we 
keep  within  religion,  and  warns  us  against  attempt- 
ing to  change  or  construe  the  latter  by  the  former. 
"  For  if  any  man  shall  think,  &c.  Therefore  attend 
His  Will  as  Himself  speaketh  it,'^  Acf  Using  the 
figure  of  two  books,  one  of  Holy  Scripture,  the 
other  of  Nature  :  "for  that  latter  will  certify  us  that 
nothing  which  the  first  teacheth  is  impossible."! 
Whoever  will  reflect  upon  these  words  will  see 
they  mean  the  exact  reverse  of  what  is  the  present 
scientific  fashion  under  the  "reign  of  law,"  and  even 
of  the  Christian  men  of  science.  So  that  we  really 
have  the  authority  of  "the  Prince  of  Philosophers," 
whose  suggestions  were  so  wise  that  we  might 
almost  say  that  all  modern  science  has  come  from 
them,  for  our  proposition,  that  the  notion  of  a  "  reign 

*  Calls  him  a  sophist. 

t  Vol.  I.  217,  218,  Interp.  of  Nature. 

t  Ibid.  p.  221. 


156  THE  KEIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

of  law,"  with  its  necessary  corollary  that  the  Word 
of  God  is  subject  to  interpretation  by  men's  dis- 
coveries, is  an  untruth  and  a  folly. 

Des  Cartes  was  not  so  sagacious  as  Bacon  in  the 
direction  of  physical  science,  so  he  has  had  far  less 
influence  with  its  votaries  since.  His  studies  were 
more  metaphysical  and  in  the  region  of  the  spiritual 
facts.  But  he  too,  like  Bacon,  being  enlightened  by 
a  devout  Christian  faith,  escaped  the  irreligious  mis- 
takes common  in  such  studies  if  pursued  with  mere 
pride  of  intellect.  Breaking  from  the  fetters  of 
Greek  philosophy,  as  well  as  of  the  technical  logic  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  he  reflected  upon  the  sonl  of  man, 
and  the  creation  of  it  and  of  all  else,  in  the  white 
light  of  God's  Word  rather  as  this  reached  him 
generally  and  implicitly  in  the  Church,  than  as  in  the 
very  Holy  Scriptures.  In  this  luminous  wisdom  of 
faith  he  saw  that  what  we  are  apt  to  call  causes 
and  forces  are  only  links  in  the  chain  of  efl'ects  :  that 
there  can  be  no  real  cause  or  force  but  in  a  Will. 
Man  has  such  a  will,  very  limited  and  weak  in  force. 
God  has  the  Almighty  and  all-including  Will.  Thus 
he  refuted  this  false  idea  of  mechanical  ^'Nature"; 
showing  that  we  do  know  that  God  created  all,  and 
does  personally  and  immediately  and  incessantly 
create  and  move  all  things ;  and  that  any  '*  second 
causes"  or  continued  "  forces  of  Nature  "  imagined 
by  us  to  be  necessary  to  God  in  His  works,  are  the 
mere  fictions  of  our  weak  intelligence  in  the  attempt 
to  comprehend  Him,  the  Unlimited,  by  our  limited 
nature. 


HISTOKY  OF  THE  NOTION  OF   A  "REIGN  OF  LAW."       157 

This  is  the  essential  and  primary  idea  of  true  re- 
ligion living  in  the  Church  of  God.  It  accords  with 
the  devout  faith  of  all  Christians,  whether  their 
thoughts  have  ever  travelled  so  far  or  not,  and  even 
if  they  think  they  believe  those  false  notions  ot 
''natural  law,"  etc.  This  is  the  simple  meaning  of 
the  whole  Book  of  God.  It  no  way  hinders  the  in- 
crease of  knowledge  to  men.  They  behold  the  Infin- 
ite One  doing  all  things  usually  with  a  sublime 
regularity,  upon  which  they  can  emplo}^  their  fore- 
thought and  make  their  studies.  In  presence  of  this 
truth  all  intellectual  difficulties  about  faith,  miracles 
and  prayer,  vanish. 

If  we  compare  Des  Cartes  and  Bacon,  wo  see  that 
there  is  no  contradiction  between  them  as  regards 
this  matter.  It  did  not  fall  within  the  range  which 
the  latter  set  for  himself  to  treat  of  the  real  Force  in 
the  created  universe,  but  only  of  the  phenomena 
which  we  observe.  Thus  his  contending  for  "  second 
causes"  and  speaking  of  "laws  of  Nature,"  had  ill 
consequences  not  intended  by  him  in  his  less  re- 
ligious successors.  The  other  did  turn  his  thoughts 
to  the  One  Force,  and  rose  with  the  strong  wing  of  an 
"  eagle  soaring  in  the  sun."  But  with  most  of  his 
countrymen  his  knowledge  of  Christian  truth  came 
only  from  teachings  of  a  Church  not  yet  reformed 
from  the  errors  of  the  dark  times,  and  which,  unlike 
that  of  England,  did  not  teach  its  members  to  study 
that  truth  for  themselves  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
So  he  did  notseek  and  prove  the  true  doctrine  of  God's 
Will  as  the  one  Force,  as  a  religious  but  as  a  philo- 
14 


158  TDE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

sophical  fact ;  not,  as  we  should,  chiefly  by  the  Word 
of  God^  but  only  by  ingenious  reasonings  from  the 
mind  of  man.  In  this  "false  position"  of  the  con- 
troversy, his  arguments,  though  superior  and  really 
unanswerable,  were  not  as  efiScient  with  scientific  men 
as  those  with  which  others  contended  for  "second 
causes"  and  "laws  of  Nature";  the  more  so,  since 
some  physical  theories  of  Des  Cartes  were  refuted  by 
the  researches  of  Kewton  and  others. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  of  late  writers  of  no  small 
pretensions,  and  is  a  great  wrong  done  to  Des  Cartes, 
to  associate  his  name  with  those  of  modern  skeptics 
in  religion,  and  even  say  that  he  is  the  father  of  this 
unbelief*  He  said  truly  of  all  human  science,  and 
especially  of  the  metaphysical,  with  which  he  was 
most  occupied,  that  the  beginning  of  all  true  know- 
ledge was  to  doubt.  His  writings  and  his  life  all 
imply  that  as  regards  knowledge  from  God  in  His 
Word  and  Church,  the  beginning  and  the  end  is  to 
believe.  This  is  as  regards  both  kinds  of  knowledge; 
the  exact  opposite  of  modern  doubt,  which  could 
therefore  be  ascribed  to  Des  Cartes  only  by  great 
ignorance  or  effrontery. 

On  the  contrary,  his  great  intellectual  demonstra- 
tion of  the  "  Reign  of  God  "  was  so  much  too  religious 

*Even  oue  so  respectable  as  Christlieb,  and  from  whom  we  might 
expect  real  research  and  accurato  statements,  says  ("Mod.  Doubt  and 
Christ.  Belief,"  p.  5.):  "  Such  thinkers  as  Des  Cartes,  Spinoza,  etc.,  etc., 
proceeded  with  more  or  less  temerity  to  unsettle  all  traditional  religious 
convictions,"  &c.  The  writer  must  have  taken  this  at  second  hand  from 
some  of  his  Spinozist  countrymen.  It  suits  well  enough  their  spiritual 
stupidity  and  their  purposes,  to  drag  one  of  the  noblest  Christiaa 
thinkers  into  the  company  of  unbelievers ;  but  not  a  champion  of  faith. 
Perhaps  he  took  it  direct  from  Kuno  Fischer,  who  is  cited  in  the  New 
Am.  Cycl.  as  authority  for  the  same  monstrous  assertion.  Are  our  books 
of  reference  and  facta  to  be  made  up  in  that  way  ? 


HISTORY   OF  THE   NOTION  OF   A  "  REIGN  OP  LAW."       159 

for  the  men  of  science  of  succeeding  times,  that  even 
his  high  renown  scarcely  saved  it  from  utter  oblivion; 
How  many  know  of  it  now  ?  or  of  those  few,  how 
many  regard  it  with  any  interest,  or  otherwise  than 
as  one  of  the  absurd  theories  of  a  barren  speculation  ? 
When  his  countryman  Malebranche,  a  very  acute 
and  profound  thinker,  repeated  it  a  half  century 
later,*  it  was  neglected  and  forgotten  in  the  same 
way. 

Yet  at  this  very  time  a  Jewish  atheist,  Spinoza, 
professed  to  assume  the  ideas  of  Des  Cartes  and  pur- 
sue them  to  further  necessary  conclusions.  These 
results  of  much  perverse  ingenuity  of  argument  were, 
that  there  is  no  God  except  that  Universe,  which  Des 
Cartes  had  shown  to  be,  not  only  once  created  by 
the  mere  will  of  God  (who  alone  and  eternally  existed 
before  it),  but  as  also  only  existing  since  and  now 
by  His  incessant  Will.  Could  untruth  go  further 
than  to  assert,  that  he  who  had  most  clearly  reasoned 
of  God  as  the  sole  personal  self  existent  and  incessant 
Creator  of  all  things,  was  the  author  of  the  notion 
that  there  was  no  such  Person  at  all !  but  that  He 
(or  rather  it)  was  only  what  it  had  created !  This 
last  notion  is  the  so-called  ''Pantheism  "  of  Spinoza, 
which  the  atheistic  Jews  and  some  atheists  of  Chris- 
tian birth  declare  to  be  the  flower  and  consummation 
of  human  reason  If 

*  Yet  he  too  without  that  primary  reference  to  Holy  Scripture  and 
proof  thereby  which  would  have  made  it  most  clear  and  strong,  and 
saved  it  from  oblivion  now  as  a  doubtful  speculation. 

tit  is  an  instance  of  the  mock  virtue  called  "  charity"  in  our  age,  to 
avoid  simple  truth  because  it  is  not  pleasant  to  some  persons.  T« 
"  call  namo^  "  in  the  sense  of  epithets  meant  to  be  spiteful  and  wound- 
ing, is  foolish  and  wicked.    To  call  things  and  persons  by  their  right 


160  THE   REIGN  OP   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

This  horrid  travesty  of  spiritual  religion,  if  not  the 
real  result  of  the  notion  of  a  "  Eeign  of  Law,"  is  cer- 
tainly far  more  in  accord  with  it  than  the  Christian 
ideas.  Yet,  while  it  could  not  displace  those  ideas 
upheld  by  the  Church  and  Word  of  God  from  the 
general  belief  of  Christendom,  this  notion  of  Law 
prevailed  more  and  more  in  all  modern  science.  It 
overflowed  out  into  literature,  and  indeed  we  have 
long  had  among  our  English  classics  a  poetical 
treatise  upon  it  in  Pope's  Essay  on  Man.  It  pene- 
trated theology,  and  formed  natural  alliances  on  the 
one  side  with  those  hard  "  systems "  of  doctrine 
which  have  a  groat  affinity  for  its  dry,  cold,  unspir- 
itual,  unmystical  and  unloving  temper, — and,  on  the 
other,  with  the  "  natural  religion  "  and  "  natural 
theology"  which  strove  to  give  the  least  possible 
offence  to  philosophic  unbelievers,  by  being  as  little 
Christian  as  possible. 

But  to  notice  this  succeeding  history  somewhat  in 
detail,  let  us  begin  with  the  authority  of  a  man,  the 
weight  of  whose  name  in  favor  of  the  erroneous 
notion  of  "Law"  cannot  be  disregarded  wherever 
the  English  language  is  read.  I  mean  Kichard 
Hooker  in  his  first  Book  of  "  Ecclesiastical  Polity." 
This  is  the  more  noteworthy  as  it  includes  an  attempt 
to  prove   this  notion  as  a  matter  of  religion    and 

names  is  a  duty  to  God  and  to  our  fellow-men,  which  we  must  not  evade 
for  the  flattery  of  being  called  "liberal"  and  "large-minded."  Thus 
while  1  may  not  deny  the  harmless  life  of  Spinoza,  and  am  even  touched 
by  the  story  of  his  studious  poverty,  yet  I  call  him  an  atheist  because  it 
is  true.  And  to  aid  in  blinding  any  one  who  is  tempted  to  take  up  with 
BUch  doctrinal  notions  for  religion,  would  be  a  great  wrong  to  such  a 
person,  and  a  more  cruel  crime  than  all  the  hard  sayings  that  have  been 
written  of  Spinoza.  This  is  just  as  true  as  if  Schleiermacher  had  not 
written  his  insane  rhapsody  of  praise  to  Baruch  Spinoza. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION   OF  A   "REIGN  OF   LAW."       161 

from  God's  Word.  Upon  examination  we  shall  be 
able  to  account  for  so  strange  a  persuasion  of  this 
great  man,  and  to  see  that  it  need  no  way  disturb  our 
judgment  of  the  truth  upon  its  real  grounds. 

The  "  Ecclesiastical  Polity  "  is  allowed  on  all  hands 
to  be  a  work  of  remarkable  sagacity  and  eloquence  ; 
]Drofound  and  serious  in  thought,  and  animated  as 
with  a  soul  by  devout  and  reverent  love.  This  has 
made  it  one  of  the  classics  of  the  English  language, 
even  with  those  who  do  not  accept  its  conclusions. 
The  first  book  receives  this  universal  praise  the  more 
because  it  does  not  pass  upon  the  disputed  questions. 
In  fact,  it  is  only  an  eloquent  prologue  to  the  real 
argument,  and  not  essential  to  it.  The  author  set- 
ting out  in  this  way  to  magnify  ''  law,"  readily  adopts 
the  vague  and  false  notion  of  Greek  philosophy* 
about  this,  as  some  "  eternal  idea  "  which  God  Him- 
self obeys  in  Creation  and  in  "  Nature."  It  is  an 
irrational  guess  from  our  nature  to  God's  Will  and 
Works,  such  as  Hooker  himself  wisely  deprecates,f — 
and  then  follows. 

But  then,  like  a  good  English  Christian,  he  will 
say  nothing  of  God  for  which  be  may  not  at  least 
think  he  finds  something  in  God's  Word.  (The  true 
method  indeed  is  to  begin  with  that,  and  only  think 
and  say  what  we  have  first  found  there.)  We  have 
seen  in  Chaps.  VI.  and  Yll.,  that  nothing  in  Holy 
Scripture    can    be    connected    with    this    notion    of 

*  He  indirectly  discloses  this  source  of  the  notion  when  he  begins  his 
account  of  it :  "  The  wise  and  learned  among  the  Heathen,"  etc.— 
Sec.  2,  vol.  1,  p.  73. 

t  See  the  passage  of  Sec.  2,  beginning,  "■  Dangerous  it  were,"  ifcc, 
quoted  at  length  vifra. 


163  THE  RBIGN  OP   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

"  Law,"  except  by  a  slight  verbal  resemblance  in 
some  figurative  expressions.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
opposite  truth  is  plainly  and  powerfully  declared  in 
a  thousand  places.  Compare  Hooker's  own  state- 
ment:  "All  things  (in  which  he  expressly  includes 
God  Himself)  do  work  after  a  sort  according  to  law," 
&c.,  with  what  he  cites  for  it,  the  mystical  account  of 
Wisdom  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  :  "  The  Lord  pos- 
sessed me  in  the  beginning  of  His  way,  even  before 
His  works  of  old  was  I  set  up." 

But  in  another  quotation  he  makes  an  argument 
upon  a  plain  mistake  of  the  meaning  of  the  original, 
which  in  fact  declares  to  us  the  opposing  truth,  that, 
at  least  so  far  as  we  men  are  to  know  or  imagine, 
the  ultimate  reason  for  everything  is,  the  loving  Will 
of  Grod.  He  says,  "  They  err,  therefore,  who  think 
that  of  the  will  of  Grod  to  do  this  or  that,  there  is  no 
reason  beside  His  Will.  Many  times  no  reason  known 
to  us ;  but  that  there  is  no  reason  thereof,  I  judge  it 
most  unreasonable  to  imagine,  inasmuch  as  He 
WOrketh  all  things  xard  rrjv  BooXtjV  too  dsX-rjiiazot; 
dvToo  —  not  only  according  to  His  own  will,  but  "  the 
counsel  of  His  own  will.  (Eph.  i.  11.)  And  whatso- 
ever is  done  with  counsel  or  wise  resolution,  hath  of 
necessity  some  reason  why  it  should  be  done,"  etc. 

I  need  only  refer  my  readers  back  to  the  notice 
of  this  very  passage  in  Holy  Scripture  (see  Chap. 
VIL),  as  we  have  already  observed  its  meaning. 
In  such  use,  BouXrj  does  not  suppose  consultation  or 
reasoning,   but   mere   will.*     That   sentence   would 

*  See  all  dictionaries  of  classic  Greek. 


HISTORY    OF  THE  NOTION   OF   A   "REIGN   OF   LAW."       163 

most  correctly  read  in  English,  "  Who  worketh  all 
things  according  to  the  wish  of  His  own  will."*  It 
is  in  fact  a  most  distinct  and  sublime  declaration, 
that  the  Eternal  One,  Who  is  Love,  does  all  things 
immediately  and  is  under  no  imaginable  "  law."  To 
say,  *'Nor  is  the  freedom  of  the  will  of  God  any 
whit  abated,  let,  or  hindered  by  means  of  this,  because 
the  imposition  of  this  law  upon  Himself  is  His  own 
free  and  voluntary  act/'  does  not  help  the  matter  at 
all,  and  is  only  a  variation  of  the  same  presumptuous 
fiction.  Indeed,  this  eloquent  rhapsody  of  Hooker's 
first  book  has  passed  for  wisdom  more  upon  the 
beauty  of  its  concluding  sentence,  "  Of  law  there  can 
be  no  less  acknowledged,"  etc.,  than  that  the  argu- 
ment was  convincing  or  even  intelligible. f  Against 
this  let  us  set  another  sentence  of  his,  which  is  both 
very  beautiful  and  wise  :  (If  he  himself  had  followed 
its  counsel,  he  would  not  have  reasoned  about  a 
reason  or  law  above  God.  For  let  us  not  forget  that 
there  is  a  profound  difference  between  the  ideas  of 
the  Will  of  God  being  the  absolute  and  supreme  law, 
and  the  Will  of  God  being  always  according  to  law.) 
"  Dangerous  it  were  for  the  feeble  brain  of  man  to 
wade  far  into  the  doings  of  the  Most  High,  whom 
although  to  know  be  life,  and  joy  to  make  mention 
of  His  name,  yet  our  soundest  knowledge  is  to  know 
that  we  know  Him  not  as  He  is,  neither  can  know 

*  There  is  a  fine  euggeation  of  this  in  the  very  title  of  the  legislature 
of  the  present  kingdom  of  Greece— the  "  Boule,'"  or  Nation's  WUl. 

tDugald  Stewart  remarks  upon  the  like  eloquent  nonsense  in  the  first 
book  of  the  Esprit  des  Loix  of  Montesquieu,  which  talks  in  the  same  way 
of  'law."  and  has  thus  passed  for  the  best  part  of  a  work  of  which  it  is 
in  fact  the  only  unmeaning  and  worthless  part. 


164         THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

Him ;  and  our  safest  eloquence  concerning  Him  is 
our  silence,  when  we  confess  without  confession  that 
His  glory  is  inexplicable,  His  greatness  above  our 
capacity  and  reach.  He  is  above,  and  we  upon  earth  : 
therefore  it  behoveth  our  words  to  be  wary  and 
few."* 

After  Malebranche,  however,  we  hear  no  more 
among  students  or  writers  of  this  as  a  religious 
question.  The  fashion  of  literary  as  well  as  of  scien- 
tific thought  was  only  to  speak  of  ^'l^ature"  and  its 
'Maws  "  as  a  self-acting  mechanism.  Even  the  pious 
Sir  Isaac  Newton  uses  that  language,  yet  with  a 
reverent  caution  which  by  no  means  insists  upon  a 
*'  reign  of  law."  His  contemporary,  Leibnitz,  whom 
some  of  the  Germans  think  the  greater  philosopher, 
was  less  wise.  He  quotes  the  language  of  Des  Cartes 
and  his  followers  in  maintaining  the  immediate  Will 
of  Grod  as  the  only  force,  saying  that  they  convert 
the  universe  into  a  perpetual  miracle.  He  says,*j* 
"You  degrade  the  Divinity;  3^ou  make  him  act  like 
a  watchmaker,  who  having  constructed  a  timepiece, 
would  still  be  obliged  himself  to  turn  the  hands,  to 
make  it  mark  the  hours.  A  skilful  mechanist  would 
so  frame  his  clock  that  it  would  go  for  a  certain 
period  without  assistance  or  interposition." 

The  German  philosopher  is  entirely  unconscious 
that  it  is  he  who  would  "  degrade  the  Divinity,"  by 
making  of  His  every  way  infinite  power  and  most  bles- 
sed will,  a  mere  question  between  skilful  or  unskilful 
mechanism.     That   which   is  so  gloriously  plain  to 

*Eccl.  Pol.  Book  I.  sec.  2.  (i.  p.  72). 
t  Aa  quoted  by  Sir  William  Hamilton. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION   OF   A   "REIGN   OF  LAW."       165 

"  the  spiritual  man  "  in  the  true  thought  of  God,  was 
not  "  discerned  "  by  this  worldly  "  natural  "  philo- 
sopher. 

Confining  our  attention  now  rather  to  the  English 
people  of  this  and  the  succeeding  age,  we  find  the 
intellectual  temper  merely  intellectual,  unspiritual 
and  worldly.  Even  the  best  divines  show  this  in 
their  writings.  They  are  so  anxious  to  be  rational, 
that  they  suppress  any  earnestness  of  faith  or  fervor 
of  love  of  God.  They  deal  in  abstract  terms,  and 
personify  them  in  a  cold,  colorless,  and  lifeless  way, 
instead  of  speaking  of  the  real  things  and  persons  of 
their  religion.  Never  until  the  last  two  hundred 
years  did  men  read  or  hear  about  **  Christianity." 
Now,  all  our  religious  books  are  full  of  it.  What  is 
"  Christianity  "  ?  The  word  is  not  in  Holy  Scripture. 
It  is  not  in  any  of  the  treasures  of  godly  wisdom  and 
love  which  have  come  to  us  from  the  great  ages  of 
faith.  It  is  not  in  any  liturgy,  confession,  ritual,  or 
book  of  devotion,  or  evangelical  counsel  which  dates 
back  of  this  affected  and  timid  age.  It  did  not  need 
to  be  at  last  invented  to  describe  that  truth  of  God 
which  had  been  known  for  one  thousand  six  hundred 
years,  and  which  had  its  own  divine  words  from  the 
first.  It  is  an  empty,  chilly  word,  behind  which  any 
error  can  lurk,  and  any  spiritual  cowardice  skulk  in 
the  hour  of  battle  and  danger. 

With  it  belong  the  unmeaning  distinctions  of 
"Deism"  and  "Theism,"  the  shadowy,  indefinable 
and  treacherous  fictions  of  a  "  Natural  Theology  "and 
"Natural  Eeligion,"  and  the  multitude  of  other  cold 


166  THE   REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 


and  weak  abstractions  which  in  our  religious  language 
we  have  substituted  for  the  strong,  honest,  fact- 
words  of  our  ancestors  of  three  hundred  years  ago. 
All  this  accords  with  the  mechanical  idea  of  Nature. 

Thus  passed  the  eighteenth  century,  with  Hume 
and  others  perplexing  believers  with  adroit  difficulties 
of  belief  founded  in  great  measure  upon  this  very 
false  notion  of  *'  laws  of  Nature  ";  and  Christian 
writers  making  ingenious  replies,  which  yet  failed  of 
the  force  they  should  have  had,  because  they  too 
allowed  the  false  idea.  Even  the  great  Bishop 
Butler  suggests,  though  he  does  not  assert  it,  and 
somewhat  weakens  his  great  argument  of"  Analogy  " 
by  diluting  it  with  '*  Natural  Eeligion."  * 

Much  in  the  same  way  has  the  nineteenth  century 
so  far  proceeded.  There  is  from  other  causes  more 
earnestness  and  fervor  in  many  Christian  writings, 
but  the  false  notion  of  a  mechanical  Nature  appears 
in  almost  all  of  them  more  positively  and  frequently. 
It  pervades  all  reading  as  never  before.  We  inherit 
in  "  modern  thought "  a  curious  compound  of  Chris- 
tian ideas  (or  terms),  those  of  the  French  infidels  of 
a  century  ago,  of  the  German  rationalists  of  all 
shades  and  shapes,  and  of  the  inventions  and  self- 
sufficiency  of  the  most  restless  mechanical  and 
money-loving  age  of  men. 

It  is  true  (and  thanks  be  to  God  for  this!)  that 
formerly  (and  it  is  so  still  in  some  measure)  this 
held   good   rather   of   the    world'  of  books   and   of" 

*If  the  author  of  the  "  Reign  of  Law  "  had  understood  Butler  better, 
and  imitated  his  masterly  caution  in  asserting  nothing  positively  which' 
he  did  not  know,  he  would  have  done  much  better. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  NOTION  OF  A  "  REIGN  OF  LAW."       167 

writers,  than  of  Christian  men  and  women  at  large. 
Alongside  of  this  literary  and  scientific  world  exis- 
ted the  great  Divine  society  of  Christians,  including 
some  of  the  before-mentioned  persons,  but  more  of 
others :  a  society  with  its  own  books  in  all  people's 
bands,  and  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  "dwells." 
The  Church  was  indeed  affected  by  the  degrading 
intellectual  influences,  but  was  not  subjugated  by 
them.  Thousands  upon  thousands  lived  and  died 
within  it  who  were  often  thinking  of  God  imme- 
diately doing  everything  about  them.  All  its  true 
members  "  implicitly "  believe  this,  even  though 
thinking  and  talking  of  "laws  of  Nature." 

Thus  there  have  not  been  wanting  within  the 
Church  through  all  this  time,  very  spiritual  and 
eloquent  men  who  have  spoken  the  great  truth.* 
Yet  this  seems  not  at  all  known  to  our  latest  Chris- 
tian writers.  If  known  at  all,  it  must  seem  to  them 
as  some  sublime  mystical  nonsense,  and  not  what  it 
is,  the  truth  of  God,  and  the  sufficient  answer  to  all 
the  objections  to  faith  in  Him  which  are  built  upon 
the  false  notion  of  a  *'  reign  of  law." 

We  should  be  thankful  to  Our  gracious  Lord  that 
this  error,  most  dangerous  when  disguised  in  other 
forms  of  speech  or  diluted  by  qualifying  phrases,  is 
at  last  presented  to  us  in  a  book  with  that  veiy  title. 
It  is  but  another  instance  of  its  subtlety,  its  preva- 
lence, and  its  irresistible  tendency,  that  this  book  is 
an  honest  attempt  to  defend  faith  against  its  assail- 

*Leighton,  Fenelon  and  many  others.  It  has  been  the  author's 
purpose  to  collect  in  an  Appendix,  or  otherwise  publish  a  collection  of 
such  citations.  But  this  must  be  omitted,  or  at  least  postponed  for  the 
present. 


168  THE   KEIGN  OP   GOD   NOT  "  THE   llEIGN  OF  LAW." 

ants.  That  the  book  receives  much  favor,  and  no 
criticism  as  regards  its  essential  and  fatal  error,  is  a 
symptom  of  the  same  which  cannot  be  mistaken. 
The  cold  and  deadly  despotism  of  mere  unspiritual 
science  over  Christians  could  not  be  more  plainly 
shown,  than  by  the  fact  that  such  a  title  of  a 
Christian  book  should  produce  no  other  sensation 
than  gratification,  that  a  Scottish  nobleman  would 
volunteer  to  defend  our  faith,  and  a  persuasion  that 
we  are  all  bound  to  accept  and  commend  his  argu- 
ments. 

The  title  of  this  book  is  indeed  a  more  important 
thing  than  its  contents.  Some  things  in  it  are  very 
well  said,  if  it  were  not  for  the  substance  and  effect 
of  the  whole.  But  it  is  not  at  all  a  mere  question  of 
words  about  that  title.  The  arguments  may  fail  to 
convince,  or  may  be  forgotten.  But  the  mention  of 
the  book  recalls  the  false  idea  with  a  sort  of  authority. 
And  this  idea  is  the  mischief.  To  have  a  true 
"  knowledge  of  God/'  we  must  get  rid  of  every 
notion  of  any  other  dominion  than  His.  "Under 
which  king?"  is  the  question  to  be  answered. 

A  "  Eeign  of  Law  "  is  the  same  in  substance  as 
making  "  Nature  "  a  (not  to  say  the)  God.  Law  is 
not  God.  The  true  thought  of  the  One  Eternal 
Person  is  obscured  by  such  phrases.  It  is  our 
unhappy,  perverse  self-degradation,  which  *' hearing 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  God,"  seeks  to  hide  itself  from 
Him  "  among  the  trees  of  the  garden."  I^o,  it  is  He 
"  with  whom  we  have  to  do."  We  cannot  love 
^'  law  ";  but  the  supreme  need  and  law  of  man  is  to 


HISTORY   OF  THE   NOTION  OF  A   "  REIGN  OF  LAW."       169 

love  Grod.  Any  -word  or  notion  that  sets  up  to  reign 
over  all  things  seeks  His  power,  no  matter  how  well 
words  are  marshalled  to  declare  that  by  this  we 
mean  to  maintain  true  religion. 

The  zealous  Christian  champions  who  concede 
the  false  notion,  cannot  exorcise  it  of  the  demon  of 
unbelief.  The  mischief  grows  with  the  advance  of 
natural  science.  One  of  the  most  eloquent  and 
earnest  of  those  entangled  in  the  net  of  this  wrong 
concession,  has  to  admit  that  "  modern  natural 
science  as  a  rule  "  is  atheistic,  in  this  very  way.  He 
says  :  "  It  talks  so  much  about  the  laws,  that  at  the 
present  time,  the  latter  in  the  view  of  numberless 
laymen  are  becoming  independent  divinities,  each 
absolute  lord  in  its  own  special  domain,  and  repudiat- 
ing all  interference  from  God  Himself.  The  old 
heathen  personified  the  forces  of  Nature,  and  made 
them  demi-gods  :  we  do  the  same  and  call  them  laws. 
The  heathen,  however,  were  rational  enough  to  place 
these  individual  lesser  gods  in  subjection  to  the  Most 
High,  while  we  invest  our  Maws  of  Kature '  with 
sovereign  power,  in  whose  august  presence  the  very 
hands  of  God  Himself  are  tied  and  bound.  In  our 
time  therefore,  natural  science  has  become  the  main 
support  of  the  separation  made  by  Deism  between  God 
and  the  worW"^ 

*  Christlieb,  Mod.  Doubt  and  Christian  ]3elief,  p.  198,  The  last  italics 
are  that  author''s. 


15 


170  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

CHAPTER  X. 

AS  TOUCHING  THE  FREE  WILL  OF  MAN. 

HAYING,  as  is  the  proper  order  of  this  investiga- 
tion, looked  for  knowledge  first  in  God's  Word, 
and  then  traced  the  history  of  human  opinion,  we 
may  now  wisely  study  it  by  our  reason  in  some  other 
aspects.  One  such  most  useful  study  will  be  its 
relation  to  the  free-will  of  man.  Many  shallow  and 
some  deep  thinkers  drop  their  plummets  into  the 
great  abyss  of  the  conjunction  of  the  human  with  the 
Absolute  will,  and  then  come  to  us  to  report  the 
exact  measurements.  I  make  no  such  attempt.  I 
believe  it  a  mystery  immeasurable  by  human  speech, 
and  unfathomable  by  human  thought.  Yet  none 
the  less  do  we  all  know  that  this  responsible  will  of 
ours  is  free,  and  yet  that  the  Infinite  Divine  Will 
always  prevails. 

But  this  repose  in  the  mystery  by  faith  and  reason 
is  invaded  by  a  gratuitous  perplexity,  if  we  entertain 
the  notion  of  a  "reign  of  law."  We  know  as  a 
transcendant  fact  that  there  is  an  immense  distance 
between  us  and  "  the  Blessed  and  Only  Potentate  "; 
and  so  we  can  calmly  believe  in  His  Suj^reme  Will, 
beside  our  conscious  freedom.  But  why  this  other 
<'reign"  ("whereas  the  Lord  was  your  king,") 
which,  as  we  shall  now  see,  must  contradict  our 
freedom  ? 

The  essential  idea  of  this  "  reign   of  law  "  is  that 


AS  TOUCHING   THE   FREE   WILL  OF  MAN.  171 

frora  the  beginning  (if  it  allows  of  any  beginning), 
and  until  the  end  of  the  world  (if  it  allows  of  any 
end),  all  things  exist  and  move  according  to  certain 
"  laws  '*  or  forces :  that  what  seems  irregular  is  only 
our  ignorance  of  its  "  law  ":  that  all  moves  with  such 
precision  and  harmony  of  its  innumerable  parts,  that 
any  one  who  knew  all  these  laws  could  calculate 
exactly  what  would  happen ;  as  e,  g.  what  the 
weather  would  be  in  Oakland,  Md.,  upon  the  summit 
of  the  AUeghanies,  a  thousand  years  from  this  day  ; 
or  how  many  gallons  of  water  would  flow  past  that 
place  that  day  in  the  Little  Youghiogeny  Eiver  -,  or 
how  many  wild  pigeons  would  collect  in  the  forest 
near  by,  at  the  same  time, — calculate  all  this  as 
correctly  as  they  now  do  the  eclipses.  To  this  all 
except  the  infidels  add,  that  when  God  made  this 
great  machine,  He  reserved  the  power  of  interfering 
in  it  with  some  few  miracles  for  the  spiritual  good 
of  man. 

Now  it  can  be  made  plain  that,  even  if  there 
were  no  essential  contradiction  of  this  notion  in  an 
interfering  Divine  Will,  if  any  other  will  interfered 
it  would  soon  destroy  the  "  reign  of  law."  *  The 
uniform  action  and  the  very  existence  of  the  machine 
(as  a  machine)  would,  in  time,  by  mechanical  neces- 
sity cease.  Its  vastness  and  power  compared  with 
the  apparent  insignificance  of  the  interference,  would 

*In  one  aspect  even  more  so  than  the  Divine,  since  of  that  it  might 
he  said,  though  erroneously,  that  the  "interferences  "  were  hut  a  part 
of  the  vast  mechanism  as  much  provided  for  in  the  working  as  the 
rest;  whereas  the  will  of  a  wayAvard  creature,  not  of  accord  by  perfect 
knowledge  and  love  with  the  Supreme  Will,— only  partly  so  even  with 
those  at  all  restored  to  it,— must  certainly  disturb  the  exact  movement. 


172  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

not  prevent  this.  The  more  prodigious  its  extent 
and  complication,  the  more  certain  and  terrific  its 
ruin.  The  nicer  its  adjustments  the  more  fatal  the 
foreign  substance  intervening ;  as  a  few  grains  of 
sand  dropped  between  some  of  the  polished  surfaces 
of  the  Strasburg  clock  would  in  time  destroy  its 
movement.  Nothing  must  be  allowed  to  be  or  to 
move  in  all  this  mechanism  of  "  Nature  "  except  by 
the  unviolated  "  reign  of  law."  Every  mote  of  dust 
has  its  place  or  changes  its  place ;  every  current  of 
air  rushes  from  the  opening  door  of  a  house,  as  a  part 
of  this  inexorable  adjustment.  If  we  could  imagine 
some  wilful  being  that  knew  (or  cared)  nothing  of 
the  coming  mischief,  approaching  to  look  at  this 
great  machine,  and  then  for  any  purpose  or  fancy 
disturbing  its  movements,  we  would  know  that  the 
ruin  of  the  whole  construction  was  only  a  question 
of  time.* 

Now  this  earth  swarms  with  just  such  will-full 
creatures  who  displace  motes  and  fluids  and  liquids 
and  solid  masses  incessantly,  without  ever  thinking 
that  they  are  in  the  midst  of  such  a  delicate  machine 
and  are  disturbing  its  normal  action.  The  amount 
of  interference  by  mankind  in  every  moment  of  time 
with  what  would  otherwise  be  the  movement  of  the 
"  laws  of  Nature  "  is  beyond  our  calculation.  If  men 
have  free  will,  this  action  of  theirs  is  not  reducible  to 
the  mechanism  of  any  such   "laws"   known  or  un- 

*  It  would  not  have  the  chance  of  repairs  and  readjustment  which  per- 
tains to  human  machines;  for  it  is  the  very  theory  of  "the  reign  of 
law,"  even  in  the  most  religious  view,  that  the  Maker  "interferes" 
only  by  miracles  for  spiritual  purposes  ;  all  else  is  iinvarying  "  law  " 
from  beginning  to  end. 


AS  TOUCHING  THE  FREE  WILL  OF  MAN.       173 

known.  It  does  not  meet  this  argument  at  all  to 
say,  that  in  all  which  men  do,  they  only  avail  them- 
selves of  the  laws  which  are  still  working  invariably. 
The  important  fact  is  that  processes  and  results  are 
changed.  Not  only  will  clouds  and  rains  be  different 
from  what  would  have  been  "  ]^ature  "  if  men  had 
not  felled  so  many  forests  and  turned  them  into 
fields,  but  every  time  a  child  throws  a  handful  of 
dust  into  the  air,  what  would  have  otherwise  been 
the  poise  and  movement  of  all  matter  is  changed 
and  can  never  again  be  the  same.  In  nothing  do  all 
the  admirers  of  a  mechanical  Nature  more  exult  than 
in  this  supposed  perfection  and  unbroken  march  of 
quantities  and  forces. 

There  is,  of  course,  only  one  way  to  save  the 
mechanism  of  law  from  this  destructive  argument, 
and  that  is  to  make  what  seems  human  free  will  a 
part  of  the  machinery.  No  one  now  who  believes 
in  the  true  God  likes  to  deny  the  freedom  which  He 
has  given  to  man.  Thus,  in  the  book  called  "  The 
Eeign  of  Law,"  we  have  one  who  is  indignant  and 
argumentative  against  the  deniers  of  man's  liberty, 
and  who  yet,  because  his  favorite  notion  requires  it, 
crowds  the  supposed  "  free  will  "  into  his  remorseless 
machine,  adjusts  it  by  certain  wheels  and  bearings  of 
his  imagining  and  to  his  own  satisfaction,  and  that 
assures  us  with  a  gratified  and  gracious  smile  that, 
"  when  we  pass  from  the  phenomena  of  Matter  to 
the  phenomena  of  Mind,  we  do  not  pass  from  under 
the  Eeign  of  Law.  Here  too  facts  do  range  them- 
selves  in   an  observed   order;   here  too   there  is  a 


174         THE   REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

chain  of  cause  and  effect  running  throughout  all 
events,"  &c.  (K.  ofL.  p.  274.) 

This  is,  in  substance,  saying  that,  while  we  think, 
(really  we  know,)  that  we  are  acting  by  our  choice  ; 
so  that  we  stand  or  move,  "  do  good  or  do  evil," 
serve  or  disobey  G-od  as  we  will,  in  which  case  alone 
would  He  judge  us;  this  is  only  in  seeming:  really 
all  our  acts  and  feelings  are  links  in  "a. chain  of 
cause  and  effect " — parts  of  the  resistless  machine 
called  ''Eeign  of  Law." 

This   is   followed    by   a    long    dissertation    upon 

"motives,"  &c.,  in  that  method  of  a  certain  school  of 

theology,  which  has  been  humorously  and  vigorously 

described    by  a   theological   adversary  as   being   in 

effect, — 

"You  can  and  you  can't: 
You  shall  and  you  shan't : 
You  will  and  you  won't: 
You'll  be  damned  if  you  do,  and  you'll  be  damned  if  you  don't." 

It  does  contain  the  admission  that  "  among  the 
motives  that  act  upon  the  mind,  Man  has  a  selecting 
power.  He  can,  as  it  were,  stand  out  from  among 
them,  look  down  from  above  them,  compare  them 
among  each  other,  and  bring  them  to  the  test  of 
conscience."  If  this  means  real  free-will  it  is  well. 
But  then  "  the  chain  of  causes  and  effects  "  disap- 
pears, and  the  "  reign  of  law  "  over  men's  choices 
and  acts,  such  as  had  been  claimed,  is  abrogated. 
Yet,  as  the  author  still  insists  upon  that  notion 
which  does  not  allow  of  real  freedom,  we  must  sup- 
pose he  thinks  this  "  selecting  power  "  to  be  never 


AS  TOUCHING   THE  FREE  WILL  OP  MAN.  175 

really  used,  or  to  be  itself  controlled  by  some  other 
force  than  his  volition,  or  that,  if  it  makes  a  "selec- 
tion," that  is  ineffective  and  noways  interrupts  "  the 
chain  of  causes  and  effects."* 

Observing  this  writer  further  as  a  representative 
of  the  others,  and  as  illustrating  the  irresistible 
tendency  of  the  notion  in  question,  we  notice  that  he 
seems  to_  see  in  mankind,  beyond  their  material 
bodies,  nothing  but  "  mind."  He  even  carries  the 
same  notion  into  the  idea  of  the  Great  God.  Let 
any  one  reflect  but  a  little  how  different  this  is  from 
what  the  Glorious  Absolute  One  tells  us  of  Himself. 
He  is,  «'  I  Am  That  I  Am."  He  "  is  a  Spirit."  He 
"  is  Love,"  &c.,  &c.  Nowhere  does  He  call  Himself 
*'  Mind,"  or  anything  equivalent  to  it.  Yet  this  is 
the  favorite  and  almost  the  only  designation  of  God 
in  the  book  before  us.  Sometimes,  indeed,  He  is 
named  as  "  Will."t  Yet  this  author  expresses 
astonishment  that  a  criticj  (very  justly,  but  he  says) 
"by  some  strange  confusion  of  thought  seems  to 
regard  with  horror  the  idea  of  the  Will  being  re- 
garded as  part  of  the  constitution  of  the  mind."     So 

*  A  man  who  was  always  controlled  in  his  acts  by  motives  in  that 
eense  would  have  no  more  real  freedom  than  a  railway  train  drawn  by  a 
locomotiye. 

■[  It  is  a  weak  and  illusive  way  of  dealing  with  great  facts,  to  use 
abstract  terms  and  in  a  sort  personify  them  by  capital  initial  letters.  It 
has  an  air  of  being  very  profound,  and  carries  the  credulous  confidence 
of  many  readers  by  an  appeal  to  their  vanity  as  being  able  to  understand 
Biich  high  and  impartial  philosophy  as  would  not  wound  the  suscepti- 
bilities of  an  atheist,  by  naming  God  as  a  Person;  but  would  delicately 
introduce  Ilim  as  the  abstraction  '•  Mind  "  or  "  Will."  This  passion  for 
abstract_ terms  and  their  personification  is  one  of  the  weaknesses  and 
misleading  tendencies  of  intellectual  vanity  in  this  age,  and  upon  many 
questions.  In  none  such  is  it  so  irrational  as  in  entertaining  it  as  a 
rational  question,  whether  there  be  "a  2^^'>'sonal  God";  since  He  is  the 
certain  and  absolute  Person,  and  other  personality  only  derived  and  re- 
lative as  to  Ilim.— See  also  Appendix  F. 

t  Dr.  Ward,  as  quoted  in  Appendix  to  "  Keign  of  Law,"  p.  417. 


176         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

then,  in  his  view,  even  the  Will  of  God  is  a  part  of 
«  Mind." 

This  is  not  a  mere  error  of  words,  but  a  great 
sj)iritual  misapprehension  which  misleads  in  all 
reasoning  from  it.  Divine  and  perfect  truth  tells 
man  little  of  his  mind  (i.  e.  the  mere  intellectual 
capacity),  but  much  of  his  spirit ;  his  real  person,  of 
which  the  mind  is  but  an  organ  or  servant.  The 
human  will  is  the  spirit  of  a  man  choosing  or  acting, 
with  which  he  can  escape  from  native  degradation, 
become  "  the  new  man,"  love  God  and  his  fellow-man, 
and  have  eternal  life  ;  or,  failing  this,  '*  perish."  It 
is  his  weakness  and  danger  to  think  only  with  pride 
of  his  faculty  of  knowing  (as  the  first  man  did  with 
such  vast  mischief).  To  apply  this  "  vain  imagina- 
tion "  to  the  Supreme  One,  and  talk  and  think  of 
Him  who  discloses  Himself  as  Creator  and  King  and 
Life  of  all, — Who  pre-eminently  judges  and  loves,  and 
in  the  love  and  loving  of  Whom  is  our  real  glory 
and  incomparable  felicity — to  talk  and  think  of  Him 
as  "Mind,"  is  even  more  to  have  "  the  foolish  heart 
darkened.'' 

When  one  who  is  by  birth  and  breeding  and 
choice  really  a  Christian,  does  this,  he  gratuitously 
puts  himself  so  far  forth  into  the  intellectual  darkness 
which  the  great  Christian  sage  describes  of  the 
Pagan  philosophers.*  He  cannot  then  have  the 
spiritual  wisdom  that  is  necessary  for  one  who  is  a 
teacher  of  others  in  these  matters.  With  the  writer 
in  question  there  is  also  probably  the  unconscious 

*Ep.  tothe  Romans  i.  21, 


AS  TOUCHING  THE  FREE  WILL  OF  MAN.  177 

influence  of  a  certain  hard  and  cold  theology  very- 
much  given  to  mere  intellectual  controversy.  He 
disclaims  this  designation  (of  "  Calvinist ")  ;  but 
while  no  doubt  denying  some  of  the  formal  state- 
ments of  dogma  which  he  supposes  to  be  included  in 
that  terra,  he  still  shows  plainly  to  an  attentive 
reader  the  rigid  and  unspiritual  temper  of  mind 
which  the  atmosphere  of  such  religious  training 
infuses  into  its  subjects. 

The  author's  evident  ignorance  (or  forge tfuln ess) 
that  there  is  any  such  thing  in  Our  Lord's  Kingdom 
upon  Earth,  as  authority  to  teach  these  greatest 
things,  corresponds  with  the  lack  of  '*  sweetness  and 
light"  of  a  more  spiritual  religious  life.  There  is, 
indeed,  in  this  age  a  general  heedlessness  about  the 
authority  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  as  the  chief 
instructors  in  "  all  things  that  pertain  unto  life  and 
godliness,"^'^  especially  as  though  this  had  no  appli- 
cation to  that  most  effective  teaching  which  is  by 
books  and  other  reading.  Yet  even  one  who  thought 
that  the  ordination  of  Christ's  ministers  was  not  at 
all  to  be  accounted  of  as  to  books,  might  have  some 
just  thoughts  of  them  as  "  ambassadors  for  God,"  and 
be  glad  to  make  allusion  in  his  writing  to  that 
divine  law  and  order  for  maintaining  truth  in  reli- 
gion. On  the  contrary,  this  writer  seems  to  hold  in 
the  spiritual  polity  what  has  been  charged  as  an 
American  idea  in  the  social  order,  that  "  one  man  is 
as  good  as  another  and  a  great  deal  better."  For  we 
will  not  suppose  that  he  thought  being  a  hereditary 

*1  Peter  i.  3.— In  this  I  think  are  fairly  included  thoughts  of  God,  and 
all  opinions  that  aftect  our  faith  in  His  Word. 


178  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 


legislator  in  one  realm  gave  a  man  authority  in  the 
kingdom  which  *'  is  not  of  this  world." 

The  very  temper  of  our  age,  which  retains  the 
intellectual  hardness  and  spiritual  insensibility  which 
prevailed  among  the  intelligent  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  adds  to  this  an  immense  mechanical 
activity  and  insatiable  money-getting,  mixing 
these  by  general  reading  through  all  classes  of 
people,  is  a  portent  of  great  danger.  And  when  one 
of  the  most  accepted  champions  of  faith  sees  in  God 
only  "Mind,"  i.  e.  the  same  thing  in  kind,  only  much 
greater  in  extent,  which  in  men  reads  and  thinks, 
and  writes  books  for  others,  and  is  admired  for  it, 
and  controls  other  men  by  hereditary  legislation  and 
such  means,  then  we  need  something  powerful  to 
counteract  this  process  and  progress  of  benumbing 
and  extinguishing  all  that  is  spiritual. 

A  man  in  an  assured,  comfortable  and  honorable 
station  in  life  may  be  comparatively  safe  from  such 
dangers  as  beset  the  most  of  those  whom  he 
addresses  with  his  book.  Certainly  he  can  scarcely 
comprehend  and  sympathize  with  them  in  the 
wearing  and  degrading  temptations  to  worldliness  of 
their  struggle  for  a  comfortable  life.  But  even  he 
and  all  of  us  alike  need  everything  to  cultivate 
humility,  and  to  soften  our  dull  hearts  to  the  emotion 
and  action  of  a  life  of  love  to  God.  To  persuade  us 
that  we  are  only  body  and  mind,  that  is,  matter  and 
thought,  is  of  the  exact  opposite  tendency.  It  is 
unspiritual  and  selfish  ;  for  intellectual  selfishness  is 
no  more  just  and  loving  than  that  which  is  brutal. 


AS  TOUCHING  THE  FREE  WILL  OF  MAN.  179 

It  is  all  of  this  present,  this  evil  world.  To  continue 
this  error  yet  farther,  so  as  to  have  no  higher  idea 
even  of  the  Divine  Spirit  than  as  a  huge  extension 
of  the  human  mind,  is  to  exclude  ourselves  from  the 
most  ennobling  and  purifying  influence,  the  one 
which  is  necessary  for  real  life,  shutting  off  the 
glorious  spiritual  vision  of  God  as  the  *'  Holy  and 
Just  and  Good." 

Even  if  we  were  all  great  noblemen,  living  in 
ancestral  palaces  with  wide  domains,  carefully  fed 
upon  good  books  and  fenced  off  from  the  fierce 
jealousies  of  selfish  life,  until  at  a  mature  age  we 
should  begin  to  govern  common  men  and  write 
books  to  instruct  them,  that  process  would  sooner  or 
later  make  us  dull  and  unloving  in  spirit,  and  unve- 
ligious,  not  to  say  irreligious.  But  for  what  we  are, 
almost  all  of  us,  with  the  common  struggles  and 
dangers  of  life,  even  in  Christian  lands,  that  will  be 
a  dreadful  day  when  the  narrow  hardness  and  cold- 
ness of  this  mere  intellectual  notion  of  man  and  of 
God  shall  really  prevail.  He  who  does  anything  to 
oppose  its  progress  and  expel  it  from  among  men,  is 
their  friend.  He  who  promotes  it,  however  igno- 
rantly,  is  their  enemy.* 

*  It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  that  the  author  of  "  The  Reigu  of  Law  "  doea 
not,  like  so  many  with  his  advantages  of  fortune,  waste  his  life  in 
merely  trying  to  enjoy  this,  hut  finds  his  pleasure  in  the  attempt  to  be 
useful  to  others,  however  mistaken  the  undertaking  before  us  may  be. 


180  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  EEIGN   OF  LAW." 

CHAPTER  XI. 

AS  RELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF   GOD. 

AJS"  even  greater  aspect  of  this  question  is  as  it 
regards  the  true  thought  of  God's  Will,  as 
His  Wo*rd  teaches  us  and  oar  best  reason  obediently 
receives  th»t  Word.  This  true  thought  is,  that  the 
Will  of  God  is  the  cause  and  purpose  of  all  else  that 
is.  The  speculations  of  men  have  taught  otherwise. 
Even  Christian  reasoners  have  lost  sight  of  this  and 
devised  other  notions,  then  assuming  and  laboring  to 
interpret  the  words  of  Holy  Writ  according  to  their 
reasonings.  Yet  none  the  less  is  this  the  plain  and 
simple  meaning  of  "  God's  Word  written,"  in  all  its 
consistent  substance  and  in  most  direct  expression. 
The  intellectual  difficulty  of  this  belief,  so  far  as 
there  is  any,  is  in  supposing  that  mere  "  arbitrary  " 
will,  as  the  ground  of  action  or  law,  is  unworthy 
even  of  a  good  man,  much  more,  therefore,  of  God  ; 
so  that  as  we  must  find  some  ground  of  truth  and  right 
in  a  man's  will,  something  which  is  outside  of  and 
above  that  mere  will,  to  make  it  good,  we  must  do 
the  same  as  to  God's  Will.  But  this  is  false  in  two 
respects  :  it  tries  the  action  of  the  One  Most  High 
Creator  by  the  conditions  in  Avhich  He  has  made  the 
man}^  creatures ;  but  still  more,  it  discards  the 
greatest  thing  which  we  know  or  can  know  of  Him, 
viz.,  that  He  "  is  love."  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
*'  arbitrary  will "  rightly  conceivable   of  Him.     In 


AS  RELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    181 

any  sucli  use  "arbitraiy  "  implies  censure,  as  of  one 
who  is  amenable  to  just  principle  and  duty,  yet  acts 
without  reference  to  them.  We  may  speak  of 
*' arbitrary  will  "  in  a  man  (alas  !  we  have  too  much 
reason  in  fact  to  do  so,)  because  he  may  be  selfish, 
and  so  in  action  unmerciful,  unjust,  unloving, 
tyrannical. 

But  of  God  it  is  not  that  His  will  is  controlled  by 
love,  but  that  His  will  "  is  love,"  and  all  of  goodness 
which  that  includes.  It  is  not  that  He  is  so  good 
that  He  will  always  obey  eternal  principles  of 
truth,  justice  and  kindness,  but  that  there  are  such 
things  as  truth,  justice  and  kindness  simply  by  His 
loving  Will, —  His  Love  which  wills  and  works 
eternally  and  absolutely.  This,  only  this,  and  no 
less  than  this,  is  what  we  read  in  Hol}^  Scripture  : 
thus,  *'For  of  Him  and  through  Him  and  to  Him  are 
all  things :  to  whom  be  glory  forever  "  [Eom.  xi.  36]. 
"Thou  hast  created  all  things,  and  foj'  Thy  pleasure 
they  are  and  were  created"  [Rev.  iv.  11]. 

A  little  human  creature,  who  is  as  to  the  Glorious 
One  as  a  mote  of  dust  to  our  whole  world,  may  call 
this  a  "selfish"  idea  of  God.  But  none  the  less  is  it 
the  truth,  and  such  a  man's  censure  a  sill}^  blasphemy. 
If  any  one  is  honestly  perplexed  by  the  thought  that 
God  has  given  us  wills  also  which  revolt  against 
enforced  submission  to  mere  Will  in  Him,  this 
should  be  relieved  by  the  counterpart  truth  that  our 
real  life  is  in  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
Thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  &c.  Such  devotion  of 
the  creature  to  the  Creator  in  personal  love,  not  only 
16 


182  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 


removes  any  pain  of  absolute  obedience,  but  makes 
it  the  highest  pleasure  and  honor.^^ 

The  true  thought  of  God  is  also  of  One,  not  merely 
as  we  deny  the  notion  of  "  gods  many,"  but  as  we 
cease  to  divide  Him,  in  our  thoughts,  into  different 
organs,  fiiculties,  or  "  attributes."t  He  makes  crea- 
tures of  parts;  He  Himself  is  the  one  absolute  Unit, 
and  we  must  think  of  His  love,  will  and  power  as  one 
action  and  person.  So  far  from  there  being  any 
rational  question  whether  God  be  a  person,  He  is  the 
ideal,  the  only  real  and  absolute  Person.  We  are  only 
partly  so,  by  His  will  of  creation  "  in  His  own  image." 

As  Will  and  Love  and  Work  are  thus  all  one  with 
Him,  we  see  that  there  is  no  past  or  future  for  Him, 
but  one  eternal  present.  The  notion  of  time  in 
which  to  effect  something  great,  is  necessary  to  us 
creatures,  but  has  no  sort  of  application  to  Him.  So 
that  the  idea  of  His  having  set  this  great  Cosmos  in 
motion  either  sixty  or  six  thousand  centuries  ago 
and  left  it  to  work  by  mechanical  "  forces,"  or  "  laws," 
is  a  mere  invention  of  our  insufficient  intelligence, 
trying  to  describe  what  is  Divine  by  human  action. 
A  much  greater,  and  therefore  more  adequate  and 
true  conception  would  bo,  that  God  does  all  things 
now  incessantly  and  directly.  The  danger  will 
always  be  of  having  not  too  high,  but  too  low  ideas 
of  Him  ;  not  that  our  own  thoughts  will  be  more 
true  than  the  words  of  His  Book,  but  that  they  will 
degrade  those  words  by  reading  them  according  to  the 

*See  Appendix  G.— A  Meditation  upon  the  Eternity  and  Sole  Self- 
Existence  of  God. 

tNone  the  less,  even  the  more,  we  should  entirely  believe  the  august 
mystery  of  the  Trinity. 


AS  RELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    183 

inferior  human  nature.  What  those  words  plainly 
teach  we  have  already  seen  in  Chapters  YI.  and  YIL 

The  author  of  "The  Eeign  of  Law,"  although 
blindfolded  by  that  false  notion,  sometimes  wanders 
very  near  to  the  true  vision  of  the  Glorious  Imme- 
diate Presence  of  God  in  all  things.  Thus  (p.  122) 
he  quotes  Sir  John  Herschel  as  saying  :  "  It  is  but 
reasonable  to  regard  the  Force  of  Gravitation  as  the 
direct  or  indirect  result  of  a  Consciousness  or  a 
Will  existing  somewhere."  He  himself  adds  :  "And 
even  if  we  cannot  certainly  identify  Force  in  all  its 
forms  with  the  direct  energies  of  One  Omnipresent 
and  all-pervading  Will,  it  is  at  least  in  the  highest 
degree  unphilosophical  to  assume  the  contrary ;  to 
speak  or  to  think  as  if  the  Force  of  Nature  were 
either  independent  of  or  even  separate  from  the 
Creator's  power," 

In  this  he  almost  announces  the  simple  truth 
which  would  dismiss  all  his  illusion  of  a  "  reign  of 
law,"  and  dispense  with  all  his  labored  arguments  to 
maintain  faith  notwithstanding.*  Yet,  though  he 
gropes  up  to  the  truth  and  seems  to  "feel  after  and 
find  "  it,  so  that  you  say,  "At  last  he  sees  ";  he  does 
not  see,  and  soon  turns  his  back  to  wander  among 
the  tombs  of  false  philosophies.  Then  you  perceive 
that  he  is  blindfolded  by  the  vain  imagination  of  a 
mechanical  Universe  j  and  even  when  he  confronts  the 
unclouded  sun,  sees  only  his  bandage. f 

♦Though  the  phrase,  "if  we  cannot  certainly,"  &c.,  does  betray  a 
false  and  fatal  prepossession,  since  it  is  not  for  us  to  "  certainly 
identify  "  God,  but  by  faith  to  behold  Him  in  all  things  according  to  His 
Word  and  our  best  reason. 

tYet  two  pages  after  we  have  hira  speaking  as  of  a  certain  truth 
about  an  infinite  number  of  elementary  forces,  p.  125. 


184  THE   REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

In  other  such  writers,  too,  we  find  glimpses  of  this 
truth  as  the  result  of  their  best  thinking.  Dr. 
McCosh  says  :'''  "  The  profoundest  minds  in  our  day 
and  in  every  day,  have  been  fond  of  regarding  this 
force  (the  one  of  which  all  so-called  forces  are 
thought  to  be  but  different  modes),  not  as  something 
independent  of  God,  but  as  the  very  power  of  God 
acting  in  all  action,  so  that  '  in  Him  we  live  and 
move  and  have  our  being.'  "f  Even  Mr.  Alfred 
Wallace,  one  of  the  most  advanced  and  most 
admired  of  living  naturalists,  in  following  up  the 
reason  of  the  thing,  cannot  resist  this  conclusion, 
that  "  the  whole  Universe  is  not  merely  dependent  on, 
but  actually  is  the  Will  of  higher  intelligence,  or  of 
one  Supreme  Intelligence. "j 

This  even  from  one  who  professes  no  obedience  to 
the  Word  of  God  !  Is  it  not  then  amazing  that  our 
defenders  of  the  Faith  (whether  rightful  or  self-con- 
stituted), our  Christian  philosophers  opposing  the 
unspiritual  and  even  atheistic  consequences  drawn 
from  a  "  reign  of  law,"  should  advance  to  this 
glorious  vision  of  truth,  which  contains  in  itself  the 
refutation  of  all  those  errors,  regard  it  with  admira- 
tion as  the  highest  achievement  of  thought  (never 
thinking  that  it  is  simply  true  religion  as  revealed 
to  them  in  the  only  true  religion) — and  then  retreat 
into  the  malarious  marsh  of  a  false  notion,  to  con- 
tinue there  a  defensive  and  disastrous  war  for  the 


*  Christianity  and  Positivism,  p.  15. 
t  Yet  in  the  very  next  pag 
16  Matter  of  the  Universe,  i 
X  Natural  Selection,  p.  3US. 


t  Yet  in  the  very  next  page  he  says,  •'But  with  the  Forces  we  have 
the  Matter  of  the  Universe,  in  which  I  helieve  the  Forces  reside,"  p.  16. 


AS  RELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    185 

truth  and  faith  of  God  !  It  is  only  another  instance 
of  the  spiritual  misguiding  which  the  idea  of  *'  laws  of 
Nature  "  works.  Some  of  the  "  profoundest  minds  " 
have  apprehended  the  great  truth  of  God's  incessant 
power  in  all,  without  such  stultifying  contradictions.* 
It  will  assist  in  establishing  and  confirming  in  our 
minds  this  truth,  to  trace  it  by  its  natural  steps  in 
reason,  as  any  honest  Christian  with  patience  can  do 
just  as  well  as  the  philosophers.  We  will  begin  with 
noticing  that  all  the  recent  studies  in  science  have 
tended  toward  the  opinion,  that  what  have  been 
heretofore  called  different  "  forces  of  Nature,"  as 
gravitation,  heat,  electricity,  chemical  affinity,  &c., 
were  "  correlated,"  passed  into  one  another  in  cer- 
tain cases,  and  were  really  the  same  thing  in  different 
appearances ;  also  that  the  amount  of  this  one  force 
was  always  the  same. 

But  what  then  is  this  ''Force"  which  we  talk 
about?  What  is  it,  for  instance,  when  we  see  some- 
thing move  and  say  that  this  could  not  be  without 
some  force  applied  ?  If  there  be  something  present 
which  is  alive  and  has  a  will,  we  ascribe  the  motion 
to  that;  otherwise  we  say  that  the  thing  "  seems  to 
be  alive,"  or  "  you  would  think  it  was  alive."  But 
we  never  think  the  force  to  be  the  matter  we  see, 
but  something  invisible  acting  within  or  upon  it. 

And  is  this  invisible  force  in  each  such  instance  a 
person  who  chooses  to  act — a  created  spirit  with  a 
will,  like  the  soul  of  man  ?  Surely  not ;  for,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  reasons,  this  motive  power  seems  to 

*  Des  Cartes,  Malebranche,  Al  Gazil,  Augustine,  St.  Paul. 


186        THR   REIGN   OF    GOD   NOT    "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

be  not  many  such,  nor  even  a  few  great  forces,  but 
one  very  great  Will.  And  is  this  Will  a  great 
created  Spirit,  interposed  by  the  Creator  between 
Himself  and  all  matter  ?  No  ;  we  could  not  wisely 
think  of  God  as  having  created  and  interposed 
between  Himself  and  matter  a  force  and  will  whose 
only  purpose  would  be  to  move  matter  according  to 
His  will.  The  simple  and  evident  thought  would 
be  that  this  one  Will  and  Force  was  the  Creator 
Himself. 

Let  us  retrace  this  enquirj^  by  the  clue  of  another 
simple  illustration.  If  we  see  a  huge  railway  train, 
which  has  been  standing  still  upon  the  track,  begin  to 
move,  what  do  we  know  to  be  the  cause  or  force  of 
this  movement  ?  Not  the  cars,  or  any  part  of  them, 
not  the  locomotive  wheels,  for  they  were  there  before, 
and  have  no  will  to  revolve  now  instead  of  standing 
still  as  before.  Not  the  pistons,  or  cylinders,  or 
valves,  or  levers,  all  for  the  same  reason.  But  we 
are  sure  that  all  this  movement  came  from  a  man 
(though  where  we  stand  we  may  not  see  him),  who 
had  a  will  that  the  train  should  move,  and  with  a 
slight  pressure  of  his  hand  set  all  the  rest  in  motion. 
Thus  we  have  an  instinct  of  reason  that  all  force  is 
really  in  will,  and  that  other  things  which  seem  to 
be  causes  and  forces  are  only  things  moved  them- 
selves by  the  real  force,  and  are  the  successive  links 
0^  effect  and  not  of  cause. 

But  you  may  say,  "  No,  it  was  not  the  man's  w^ill, 
but  the  expansive  power  of  steam.  If  that  had  not 
been   present,  all   his   contrivance  and  all  his  will 


AS  RELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    187 

would  not  have  moved  this  great  weight  a  hair's 
breadth.  This  force  of  steam  might  even  against  hia 
will  burst  its  enclosures  and  destroy  all  around  it, 
even  this  master  man."  Has  it  then  a  will  too? 
No ;  if  a  force  at  all,  it  is  a  blind  and  unthinking 
one;  itself  must  be  but  a  mere  effect.  An  hour  ago 
it  did  not  exist ;  only  after  the  man  had  placed  water 
where  it  is  now,  and  kindled  fire  beneath  it.  And 
so  steam  came  i-tself  from  the  man's  will. 

But  in  another  aspect  it  is  true  that  there  was 
force  besides  the  man's  will.  His  will  was  a  force 
contained  within  plain  limits.  By  it  he  could,  as  he 
did  purposely,  fii'st  "  raise  "  the  steam  with  water 
and  by  fire,  and  then  raise  the  lever  to  use  this 
force  for  motion.  But  the  achieving  of  this  motion 
by  his  will  is  a  very  different  kind  from  that  simple 
will  by  which  he  walks,  or  with  his  hand  merely 
raises  the  valve-lever.  Of  it  we  commonly  say  that 
"  by  contrivance  he  uses  the  forces  of  Nature  to  do 
his  will."  Even  the  first-mentioned  simple  power 
of  will  is  his  only  as  God  has  made  and  sustained 
his  life,  and  within  such  ranere  as  He  appoints  to 
His  creatures — great  as  regards  the  goodness  of  the 
Maker,  but  very  small  in  comparison  of  that  Maker's 
power  of  Will.  The  other  is  the  use  of  force  which 
in  no  sense  is  his — a  use  allowed  by,  made  for  him 
by,  Him  who  really  is  All  Power. 

These  "  forces  of  Nature  " — this  one  Force  really  in 
various  modes,  which  is  not  man's  will — is  it  or  not 
the  will  of  some  person  ?  From  what  has  been 
already  shown  we  cannot  doubt  it.     Matter,  even  in 


188        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW. 

the  most  subtle  invisible  form,  and  beyond  all  our 
senses,  cannot  be  Force  ;  it  is  the  object  upon  which 
Force  acts.  And  when  we  get  back  of  all  the  effects 
which  seem  each  to  impel  the  succeeding  one,  to 
what  gives  the  real  push,  we  know  that  it  must  be  a 
person  who  chose  to  give  an  impulse,  and  did  so. 
vShall  we,  as  so  many  do,  call  this  person  *'  Nature  "  ? 
and  if  so,  what  will  we  really  mean  by  it,  or  will  we 
mean  anything? 

Eather  let  the  highest  truth,  that  is,  true  religion, 
answer  the  question.  "  Are  not  two  sparrows  sold 
for  a  farthing  ?  and  one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the 
ground  without  your  Father^  The  ceaseless,  imme- 
diate will  of  Grod  is  that  Force  of  all  movement  and 
life,  except  the  little  part  of  it  committed  by  Him  to 
the  wills  of  such  persons  as  He  creates.  Of  course 
this  Divine  Power  is  utterly  unlike  anything  that 
man  or  any  other  creatures  of  God  can  do  with  their 
small  wills  and  mere  use  of  some  little  part  of  His 
great  workings. 

But  how  do  those  who  discourse  of  a  "reign  of 
law "  treat  this  transcendent  truth  ?  They  shall 
speak  for  themselves.*  "It  is,  indeed,  the  complete- 
ness of  the  analogy  between  our  own  works  on  such 
a  scale  and  the  works  of  the  Creator  on  an  infinitely 
large  scale,  which  is  the  greatest  mystery  of  all. 
Man  is  under  constraint  to  adopt  the  principle  of 
adjustment,  because  the  Forces  of  Nature  are  ex- 
ternal and  independent  of  his  will.  They  may  be 
managed,  but  they  cannot  be  disobeyed.     It  is  im- 

*  Reign  of  Law,  p.  135. 


AS  BELATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    189 

possible  to  suppose  that  they  stand  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  Will  of  the  Supreme.  Yet  it  seems  as  if 
He  took  the  same  method  of  dealing  with  them, 
never  violating  them,  never  breaking  them,  but 
always  ruling  them  by  what  we  call  adjustment 
and  contrivance.  Nothing  gives  us  such  an  idea  of 
the  immutability  of  Laws  as  this ;  nor  does  anything 
give  us  such  an  idea  of  their  pliability  to  use.  How 
imperious  they  are,  yet  how  submissive  !  How  they 
reign,  yet  how  they  serve  !  " 

This  is  in  substance  saying  that  God  is,  in  what 
He  does  in  the  material  Universe,  just  a  man  "  on  an 
infinitely  larger  scale."  The  writer  had  said  just 
before,  "There  is  this  differejice,  indeed,  that  in 
regard  to  our  works  we  see  that  our  knowledge  of 
natural  laws  is  very  imperfect  and  our  control  of 
them  is  very  feeble ;  while  in  the  machinery  of 
Nature  there  is  evidence  of  complete  knowledge  and 
of  absolute  control."  That  is,  God  uses  the  vast 
forces  around  Him,  with  a  profitable  ingenuity  like 
ours  when  we  convert  them  to  our  purposes  in 
steam-engines  and  the  like  :  only  He  knows  all  about 
them  and  avails  Himself  of  them  with  much  greater 
energy. 

This  may  not  unlikely  pass  with  inattentive 
readers  for  something  wise  and  true.  But  it  is 
amazing  folly.  The  writer  seems  to  get  a  glimpse 
of  the  absurdity,  and  to  make  a  feeble  protest 
against  just  censure  of  it,  saying,  *' It  is  impossible 
to  suppose  that  they  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
the  Will  of  the  Supreme."     Yet  he  begins  and  ends 


190  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD   NOT   "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW. 


his  song  of  worship  to  these  '•  immutable "  and 
"imperious"  deities  with  that  very  supposition. 
"  Impossible,"  indeed  !  Could  anj^thing  be  more 
preposterous  ?  What  he  states  as  "  the  difference  " 
between  man's  contrivances  and  adjustments,  and 
God's  "mighty  acts"  and  "wonderful  works,"  is 
only  the  mention  of  two  incidents  of  this  cuiignor- 
ance  and  weakness.  The  real  difference  is  that 
what  we  use  is  a  very  little  part  of  His  action.  Yet 
we  are  told  that  He,  "  by  a  complete  analogy,  takes 
the  same  method  of  dealing  with  "—  His  own  AVill 
and  acts  !  — "  never  violating,  never  breaking,  but 
always  ruling  them !  "  That  is,  He  avails  Himself 
of  His  own  acts  to  do  what  He  does !  He  never 
"  breaks  "  nor  "  violates,"  but  always  "  rules  "  His 
own  glorious  Will,  which  is  all  love  and  truth  and 
power  !  '*  There  is  evidence''  that  God  has  complete 
knowledge  and  absolute  control  —  of  what  He  is  all 
the  time  doing  Himself!     Truly, 

—"the  force  of  folly  could  no  farther  go." 

Such  irreligious  absurdities  show  how  "  they  walk 
in  a  vain  shadow  "  who  assume  as  a  primary  truth 
the  pagan  and  unspiritual  notion  of  "  laws  "  and 
"forces  "  as  anything  else  than  the  immediate  will  of 
the  "  Most  High,"  so  that  they  can  even  talk  of  them 
as  "  imperious  "  toward  God.  The  more  they  reason 
about  the  Divine  the  less  they  really  see  of  it ;  and 
80  the  language  and  very  conception  of  a  religion  of 
"  gods  many,"  the  "  soul  of  the  world  "  of  Plato,  and 


AS  KBLATED  TO  THE  WILL  AND  LOVE  OF  GOD.    191 

the  "  Nature "  of  Aristotle,  displace  the  spiritual 
vision  of  Him  in  Whom  "  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being." 

For  truth  in  this  enquiry  we  return  them  to  the 
contemplation  of  that  transcendent  Person.  Nothing 
is  true  that  does  not  accord  with  truth  concerning 
Him.  He  is  essentially  One  ;  not  made  up  of  power, 
truth,  love,  and  the  like,  but  simply  the  One  Eternal, 
All-including  Life,  Will,  Power,  Truth  and  Love. 
This  all-powerful  Love  has  a  continual  will  that 
there  shall  be  existence  and  life  such  as  we  behold, 
and  are  ourselves  a  part  of  it.  To  fancy  that 
Almighty  Will  controlled  by,  or  effecting  its  purposes 
by  contriving  and  adjusting,  something  outside  of 
itself,  or  limited  in  what  it  would  do  now  by  anything 
it  has  done  in  the  past ;  or  to  have  any  such  concep- 
tion of  His  power  as  obscures  to  us  the  thought  of 
His  personal  .love,  and  substitutes  for  it  at  best  a 
machine  of  "benevolent  design," — to  use  the  cold, 
thin  and  impotent  phrase  which  all  such  reasoning 
substitutes  for  the  mighty  truth  of  God's  love — is 
blindness  to  the  vision  of  Him  as  He  "  declares  " 
Himself  to  us  in  His  Word.  Therefore,  the  notion 
of  "  natural  law  "  and  its  "  reign  "  is  false  ;  and  the 
belief  that  all  things  are  and  move  simply  because 
He  wishes  them  to  at  the  time,  must  be  true. 


192  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ITS    EFFECT    UPON    THE    INTERPRETATION    OF    HOLY 
SCRIPTURE. 

NOR  can  this  notion  be  held  without  a  certain 
effect  upon  our  apprehension  of  the  Word  of 
Grod.  This  of  itself  would  make  it  a  religious  ques- 
tion. (See  also  sujpra,  Chap.  III).  We  have  already 
had  a  glimpse  of  this  in  our  preliminary  discussions, 
specially  as  to  deciding  it  by  "Natural  Theology," 
(Chap.  IV),  and  as  to  the  comparative  certainty  of 
science,  or  a  Word  of  God.  (Chap.  Y).  But  now 
our  enquiry  is  :  "  Supposing  belief  of  a  '  reign  of 
law,'  what  must  of  necessity  be  our  method  of  under- 
standing the  Word  of  God,  and  specially  of  inter- 
preting the  Holy  Scriptures?" 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  *  in  proportion  as  this  notion 
has  prevailed  in  modern  Christendom,  it  has  been 
accompanied  by  a  denial  of  literal  fact  to  the  holy 
history  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  older  Word  of  God, 
upon  the  ground  that  what  is  miraculous  and 
supernatural  cannot  reasonabl}^  be  believed.  The 
argument  for  this  from  the  premise  of  a  "  reign  of 
law  "  is  to  my  mind  irresistible.  The  Divine  truth  in 
Christian  faith  has  nevertheless  overpowered  that 
false  conclusion  in  a  great  number  who  maintain  this 
notion  of  "  natural  law,"  and  are  among  the  most 
successful    in   scientific   research.     But    even    with 

*^QQ passim  the  History,  Chap.  VIII.-IX. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  193 

them  it  has  brought  in  a  new  method  of  apprehending 
the  Word  of  God,  by  the  consent  of  almost  all 
Christian  writers  of  this  age  to  change  the  former 
accepted  meaning  of  certain  parts  of  Holy  Scripture 
to  accord  with  what  "Science "is  said  to  have 
proved.  This  is  a  very  serious  matter.  No  new 
method  of  understanding  God's  Word  ought  to  be 
allowed  without  careful  study  of  all  its  merits,  and 
of  its  necessary  or  even  probable  results.  The 
general  relations  of  God's  Word  to  man's  science 
have  been  already  set  forth  (Chap.  Y).  We  will 
now  consider  the  actual  tendency  and  results  so  far 
of  the  prevailing  notion.  Some  may  see  in  this  only 
a  progress  of  truth.  If  so,  it  is  good,  religious,  divine : 
an  argument  for  the  "  reign  of  law."  But  to  others 
it  seems  the  confusion  and  discrediting  of  the  most 
valuable  truth.  May  God  Himself  show  us  which  is 
right. 

Until  quite  lately  these  results  have  been  confined 
to  new  interpretations  of  the  history  of  Creation 
(Genesis  I.)  and  a  few  other  supernatural  facts.'^ 
But  there  is  already  a  further  tendency  and  advan- 
cing results,  the  noting  of  which  belongs  here.  We 
drift  slowly  perhaps,  but  steadily,  toward  more  such 
changafi.  Some  perhaps  notice  this  movement,  and 
secretly  rejoice  in  it.  Some  are  undisturbed,  because 
they  suppose  we  have  seen  the  worst  or  all  of  the 
change ;  otherwise  they  would  be  alarmed  into  pro- 
testing against  and  renouncing  this  method  which 

*  These  new  interpretations  and  some  kindred  questions  will  be  best 
considered  in  Chap.  XIII.  following  this. 

17 


194         THE   liEIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

they  have  consented  to  so  far.  Eeal  truth,  however, 
will  be  best  promoted  by  our  all  distinctly  seeing  and 
openly  admitting  what  is  on  the  way. 

Of  late  the  men  of  science  generally  agree  that 
they  have  proved  —  as  plainly  as  their  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years  for  building  the  crest  of  this  globe, 
or  millions  for  the  present  order  of  the  Universe  — 
that  mankind  inhabited  the  earth  long  before  the 
period  in  which  we  Christians  have  always  under- 
stood God's  Word  to  tell  us  that  man  was  first  made. 
Now  this  if  allowed  to  be  true,  makes  one's  faith 
somewhat  dizzy.  We  may  have  but  just,  and  after  a 
long  time,  got  over  a  like  shock  once  received  about 
the  *'  days  of  creation."  We  may  have  been  finally 
persuaded  by  our  scientific  fellow-Christians,  clerical 
or  lay,  that  we  must  in  only  just  that  instance 
admit  that  the  meaning  of  God's  Word  was  never 
understood  until  the  present  Geology  and  Astronomy 
appeared. 

But  now  comes  another  like  demand,  and  not  a 
word  of  refusal  is  heard  from  the  Christian  philo- 
sophers. They  are  either  looking  the  other  way,  as 
if  unaware,  or  looking  on  in  silent  approval,  or  look- 
ing down  with  silent  timidity.  What  are  we  all  to 
do  ?  Not  that  a  man  may  not  in  the  most  high  and 
blessed  sense  of  those  words,  "  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  if  man  were  created  sixty  thousand 
instead  of  six  thousand  years  ago.  But  it  does 
matter  greatly,  and  it  does  aifect  our  fiaith  generally 
in  the  Word  of  God,  whether  what  has  seemed  its 
plain   meaninr:   for  thousands   of  years  in  all  that 


INTERPRETATION  OF   HOLT  SCRIPTURE.  195 

Divine  Society  which  is  its  "  witness  and  keeper,"  is 
to  be  changed  with  the  changes  of  human  science. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Joined  with  the  new  belief  about 
the  antiquity  of  our  race,  and,  like  it,  received  by  the 
Christian  men  of  science  with  a  silence  that  betokens 
no  good  to  firm  convictions  in  religion,  is  one  about 
the  nature  of  the  first  man  and  the  change  to  the 
present^  as  represented  by  the  phrases  of  "  stone  age  " 
and  the  like.  It  means  that  mankind  began  long 
before  what  Moses  relates :  filthy  and  stupid  and 
brutish  (if  not  mere  brutes),  hiding  from  the  storms 
like  bears  and  serpents  in  mouldy  caves,  digging  the 
earth  with  their  fingers  in  search  of  roots,  or  tearing 
raw  flesh  for  their  food  ;  that  from  this  some  of  them 
ascended  by  slow  steps  of  a  thousand  or  ten 
thousand  years  each,  to  make  tools  with  clumsy  bits 
of  stone  ;  that  thence  in  the  same  progress  they  rose 
to  have  language  and  writing,  to  imagine  a  Person 
or  persons  far  above  them,  and  thus  a  religion ;  that 
on  from  this  in  the  present  historical  period  an 
ingenious  few  became  more  and  more  intelligent, 
partly  elevating  the  rest  with  them,  until  this  culmi- 
nates in  a  "  scientist "  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
who  knows  about  "  the  Eeign  of  Law,"  and  adores 
"Mind."* 

There  is  another  account  of  the  beginning  of  man 
which  can  be  best  stated  in  these  sentences  :     "  God 


*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  "  discovery  "  appears  now  among 
those  whose  ancestors  were  naked  savages  centuries  after  those  who 
believed  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  were  an  intelligent  and  orderly 
people,  worshipping  the  One  God  with  a  snhlime  ritual,  and  having  in 
their  hands,  as  His  Word,  this  and  other  writings  which  have  never 
since  been  surpassed  in  spiritual  devotion. 


196         THE   REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

created  man  in  His  own  image  "  [Gen.  i.  27].  "And 
the  Lord  God  took  the  man  and  put  him  in  the 
garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it.  .  .  .  And 
out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast 
of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought 
them  unto  Adam  to  see  what  he  would  call  them  " 
[Gen.  ii.  15,  19].  "What  is  man  that  Thou  art 
mindful  of  him,  or  the  son  of  man  that  Thou  visitest 
him  ?  For  Thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,  and  hast  crowned  him  with  glory  and 
honor"  [Ps.  viii.  4,  5].  "God  hath  made  man  up- 
right, but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions  " 
[Eccles.  vii.]  "  Because  that  when  they  knew  God, 
they  glorified  Him  not  as  God."  [Eom.  i.  21.] 

This  account  and  the  new  theory  are  plainly  in- 
compatible. I  say  this  simply,  though  we  shall  soon 
no  doubt  have  some  one  adjusting  Scripture  and 
faith  to  this  science.  He  who  accepts  the  later 
will  do  so  by  abandoning  the  former  in  its  old 
natural  sense.  And  this  is  what  the  Science  of  our 
day  is  preparing  for  us  all,  and  which  our  defenders 
of  the  faith,  bound  and  blindfolded  by  their  false 
notion  of  a  "reign  of  law,"  are  powerless  to  resist. 
Judge  it  then  by  this  tendency. 

I  have  not  even  yet  referred  to  the  further  theory 
of  some,  that  long  before  the  b?'ute  mari  he  had  a 
progenitor  in  the  brute  ape;  and  that  indefinitely 
(not  to  say  infinitely)  farther  back,  all  that  now  live 
were  shapeless  moners  in  slime,  and*  even  before  that 
all  that  now  exists  was  only  some  warm  vapor.  It 
is  true  that  some  of  the  Christian  naturalists  argue 


INTERPRETATION   OF  HOLY   SCRTPTURE.  197 

against  this,  (while  some  of  them  seem  rather  drawn 
to  it).  But  their  arguments  are  largely  and  literally 
ad  hominem,  appealing  against  the  disgrace  of  such  a 
genealogy.  That  is  scarcely  reason.  The  question 
is  not  much  worth  disputing  about,  if  we  are  to 
surrender  the  literal  Christian  truth  about  Adam's 
innocence  and  fall.  One  cannot  be  sure  that  this 
fight  is  not  made  with  an  eye  to  a  final  compromise 
in  that  surrender.  Let  those  who  contemplate  that 
be  well  advised  that  there  are  others  whom  they  can 
never  represent  in  that  capitulation,  nor  afterwards 
persuade  to  march  out  of  the  fortress  of  a  simple 
faith,  under  any  of  those  guaranties. 

"  But  does  not  God  also  teach  man  by  the  Book  of 
Nature  ?  Is  not  His  voice  thus  in  His  works  as 
we  wisely  study  them?"  Yes,  in  a  manner  and 
sense.  All  knowledge  comes  from  Him,  including 
what  we,  with  the  mind  which  He  has  made,  get  by 
noticing  and  studying  the  other  things  which  He 
has  made.  But  ccrtainlj^,  as  shown  before  (see 
Chapter  Y.),  different  matters  of  knowledge  may  be 
of  different  importance  and  of  different  certainty. 
And  are  we  always  sure  that  what  these  men  think 
they  discover  is  the  truth,  and  is  what  God  teaches 
in  His  works?  On  the  other  hand,  "we  know  that 
God  spake  by  Moses  "  and  that  Our  Lord  is  '*  the 
Word  of  God."  When  there  seems  a  discrepancy 
between  these  and  the  supposed  truth  of  God  in 
Science,  what  may  we  most  wisely  do  ?  Is  this  last 
so  certainly  true  compared  with  anything  which  we 
have  learned  from  the  other,  that  we  must  always 


198  TUE   llEIGN   OF   GOD    NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

adjust  the  meaning  of  Holy  Writ  to  the  Science  of 
our  times,  no  matter  what  violence  that  may  do  to 
its  more  evident  meaning? 

This  notion,  already  confuted  in  Chapter  V.  (which 
see),  would  appear  to  prevail  with  the  Christian 
writers  of  our  age.  So  it  is  well  even  here  with 
some  repetition  to  expose  its  folly.  Of  the  two 
related  factors,  then,  Holy  Scripture  is  the  variable, 
Science  the  constant.  Can  anything  be  more  absurd 
than  this  according  to  Christian  faith  ?  Even  waiv- 
ing this  superior  certainty  of  a  Word  of  God,  and 
looking  only  at  an  evident  and  admitted  fact,  the 
Science  is  very  incomplete  and  altogether  in  a  state 
of  transition.  In  this  consists  the  interest  of  study 
and  the  excitement  of  discovery  in  all  our  Science. 
Could  we  hope  to  secure  certain  truth  by  adjusting 
one  variable  to  another  variable  ?  How  much  less 
by  "  reconciling "  what  is  already  complete  and 
divinely  certain,  to  supposed  truth,  the  defects  and 
mistakes  of  which  the  twentieth  century  may 
smile  at. 

If  any  one  say  that  it  is  not  the  written  Word  of 
God  which  we  correct,  but  our  wrong  apprehension 
of  it,  is  not  this  really  the  same  thing?  What  does 
the  Almighty  One  mean  in  addressing  us  with  words, 
except  that  we  shall  apprehend  His  meaning  in 
them  ?  It  is,  indeed,  true  of  human  speech  in  its 
very  nature,  that  its  meaning  has  a  certain  range  ot 
variation,  accordingly  as  we  may  interpret  it.  But 
this  uncertainty  of  language  is  comparative  and 
within  a  very  narrow  range.     It  must  also  be  at  its 


INTERPRETATION  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  199 

least  when  God  uses  it  to  speak  to  men.  It  is  as 
much  His  creation  as  are  the  stars.  Words  are 
certainly  the  vehicle  of  most  direct  approach  of 
knowledge  to  the  human  mind.*  Even  Science 
testifies  to  this,  in  that  it  must  use  language  to  teach 
its  results. 

Then  any  knowledge  which  comes  by  our  observa- 
tions of,  and  reasonings  upon,  the  other  works  of 
God,  is,  at  least  where  it  bears  even  most  remotely 
upon  the  spiritual  and  Divine,  not  only  cramped  by 
our  inferior  intelligence,  but  also  poisoned  by  the 
subtle  mixture  of  our  moral  perversion,  our  spiritual 
*'  error,  ignorance,  pride  and  prejudice."  That  this 
is  also  in  a  measure  true  of  our  learning  from  Holy 
Scripture,  only  shows  the  more  plainly  how  yet 
more  uncertain  is  what  we  learn  (or  think  we  do)  by 
a  method  in  which  truth  passes  much  farther  through 
the  disturbing  medium. 

Thus  of  two  messages  from  God  coming  to  our 
knowledge,  that  rather  should  govern  and  interpret 
the  other  which  was  later  in  time,  more  direct,  and 
specially  provided  for  our  highest  or  spiritual  life 
after  that  had  suffered  a  great  injury,  as  in  the  Fall 
of  man.  This  may  close  some  gaps  in  the  first 
imparted  knowledge  through  which  man  had  ignor- 
antly'strayed.  It  certainly  meets  him  in  his  later 
and  actual  condition.  Our  Divine  revelation,  with 
its  wonderful  progress  through  four  thousand  years, 
was  given  us  later  than  the  establishment  of  those 

♦Unless  we  except  from  this  mere  sensations  of  physical  pleasure  or 
pain. 


200  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

uniform  movements  of  matter  which  we  study  as  a 
^'Book  of  Nature."* 

Then  in  the  interpretation  of  a  Word  of  God,  we 
are  not  left  each  of  us  to  his  individual  notions  or 
accidental  prejudice,  or  the  sort  of  "authority" 
known  in  Science,  which  is  only  the  often  contra- 
dictory statements  of  irresponsible  authors  who 
chance  to  have  studied  and  written  upon  these 
matters  ;  statements  which  have  come  to  our  notice 
by  the  mere  intellectual  fashion  of  our  time  and 
country,  which  may  be  as  blind  and  arbitrary  as 
that  of  dress.  But  God  spoke  this  Word  by  "  holy 
men  of  old,"  moved  by  His  inspiration  ;  then  by  His 
Son  in  person  and  that  Son's  Apostles ;  and  then 
gave  His  Word  written  to  a  great  society  always  to 
be  continued,  in  which  Our  Lord  and  King  dwells 
perpetually,  and  is  now  among  all  men  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  With  whatever  differences  of  particulars  all 
we  Christians  "  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,"  we  recognize  through  it  a  vast  superiority 
of  authoritative  meaning  in  Holy  Scripture  comj^ared 
with  any  "Book  of  Nature." 

For  these  and  other  like  reasons  (see  Chapter  Y.) 
it  is,  therefore,  against  the  Christian  faith  to  allow 
that  the  plain,  simple  meaning  of  Holy  Writ  must 
be  adjusted  to  the  Science  of  our  times,  or  to  any  part 
of  it.     This  is  not  a  mere  question   with   our  con. 

*Il  does  not  lessen  the  force  of  this  that  the  knowledge  through 
"Nature  "  is  only  now  coming  among  men;  or  that  it  too  has  a  slow 
progress  of  development.  The  truth  around  us  was  set  before  man  first, 
when  he  was  innocent  and  perfect  himself.  That  (you  say)  has  never 
varied.  The  Word  of  God  to  men  is  later,  and  is  given  to  them  in  their 
subsequent  and  still  existing  condition. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  201 

temporaries,  of  confuting  German  rationalists,  or 
successfully  exchanging  sarcasms  in  our  own  lan- 
guage with  Messrs.  Tyndall  and  Darwin.  The  great 
truth  must  be  vindicated,  that  no  accumulation  of 
the  scientific  research  in  all  the  ages,  no  great  names 
of  the  past,  not  Plato,  Bacon,  or  Newton,  more  than 
our  living  naturalists,  have  any  authority  against 
the  plain  meaning  of  "  God's  Word  VV^ritten."  It  is 
true  that  in  different  ways  we  might  find  that  we 
had  been  used  to  take  some  of  the  sacred  words  in  a 
wrong  sense,  in  some  unimjDortaut  particulars,  and 
that  we  should  then  gladly  correct  the  error.  But 
due  reverence  and  anything  like  real  faith  in  it  as 
God's  Word,  should  make  us  very  careful  in  this. 
We  should  be  on  our  guard  against  our  own  levity, 
love  of  novelty,  or  pride  of  discovery.  Certainly  we 
must  not  do  this  ever  as  a  timid  concession  to  the 
hostile  criticism  of  unbelievers. 

Is  it  not  sometimes  this  timidity  which  says  that 
"  Holy  Scripture  does  not  intend  to  teach  Science  "  ? 
But,  as  shown  before  (see  Chapter  Y.),  it  does  teach 
facts,  i.  e.  things  done,  both  natural  and  supernatural. 
It  also  always  mentions  them  as  done  by  a  ivill, 
either  God's  or  that  of  some  such  of  His  creatures  as 
He  has  given  the  limited  will  possible  for  them. 
This  is  the  absolute  and  most  important  truth. 
Outside  of  it  lies  for  us  a  range  of  possible  discovery, 
the  observation  and  study  and  application  to  our  use 
in  brief  life  upon  earth,  of  the  wonderful  things  He 
has  made  around  us,  and  the  wonderful  usual  order 
in    which   they  live    and   move.     This  part  of  our 


203  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW.' 


knowledge,  with  its  multitude  of  little  details  and  its 
brief  inferior  importance,  though  like  all  else  given 
by  the  love  of  God  and  best  used  to  make  us  love 
Him,  does  not  find  place  in  His  Word.  It  is  left  to, 
it  constitutes,  our  science,  with  small  actual  accumu- 
lations so  far,  and,  no  doubt,  considerable  mistakes  ; 
with  great  possibilities,  which  are  also  the  measure 
of  the  actual  deficiencies.  However  great  it  may 
seem  to  us,  what  an  inconsiderable  asteroid  it  really 
is,  floating  in  the  vast  infinite  of  truth  !  We  ought 
in  this  discussion  to  compare  it  in  all  the  particulars 
just  mentioned  with  "  the  depth  (and  height)  of  the 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God." 

This  science  of  ours,  Holy  Writ  indeed  does  not 
teach.  In  this,  among  other  things,  those  writings 
differ  in  a  wonderful  way  from  any  other  so-called 
"  sacred  books "  of  nations  or  sects.  (Such  things 
which  are  not  divine  are  sure  to  make  an  ambitious 
display  of  what  prevails  as  the  "  wisdom  of  men  "  at 
the  time.)  Nevertheless  it  does  as  we  have  already 
seen,  relate  facts  both  natural  and  supernatural.  It 
is  not  of  such  importance  to  true  faith  to  which  of 
these  classes  any  one  such  fact  of  what  God  has 
done  belongs,  even  whether  we  may  not  have  here- 
tofore by  mistake  referred  it  to  the  wrong  class.  In 
either  case  it  is.  the  direct  will  and  act  of  God.  But 
if  we  remove  it  in  our  thoughts  from  the  super- 
natural to  the  natural  upon  grounds  which  suggest 
unbelief  in  all  the  supernatural,  that  is  a  great  thing. 

With  this  thought  to  change  the  previous  apparent 
and  accepted  meaning  of  any  fact  of  Scripture ;  to 


INTERPRETATION   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  203 

treat  these  Divine  wonders  as  we  would  some  unex- 
plained wonder  of  common  observation,  as  only 
waiting  for  the  discovery  of  another  ''  law  "  to  be 
reduced  to  a  part  of  the  inexorable  machinery  of 
*'  Nature";  to  assume  that  we  would  gain  something 
to  truth  by  reducing  the  number  of  miracles,  though 
we  admit  that  for  spiritual  necessities  truth  must 
still  submit  to  some  of  such  violent  anomalies, —  all 
this  has  just  that  tendency  to  cause  doubt  of  the 
Word  of  God. 

No:  the  only  rational  use  of  a  Word  of  God 
requires  us  to  expect  in  it  the  supernatural,  much  of 
the  supernatural :  to  look  for  the  truth  in  such 
heretofore  supposed  meaning  of  its  facts,  rather  than 
in  any  n€w  meaning  suggested  by  our  new  (or  our 
old)  science  applied.  The  purpose  of  that  Word  is 
faith  in  God.  Did  any  one  ever  believe  the  less  for 
any  miracle  therein  related,  —  or  the  more  for  a 
"  natural  "  account  of  the  same  incident  ?  Is  not  the 
reverse  of  this  true  ?  The  tendency  of  all  new  inter- 
pretation by  our  science  is  toward  general  distrust. 
The  secret  thought  at  once  asks  (even  if  there  be  no 
distinct  consciousness  of  this,)  "  If  this  which  seemed 
to  be  told  as  the  direct  act  of  God  is  not  so,  but  a 
movement  of  the  great  machine  of  laws — why  not 
as  well  the  other  miracle  ?  "  There  is  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  the  new  method  or  its  results  so  far  which 
gives  assurance  that  it  will  leave  the  rest  of  God's 
Word  or  any  of  it  to  be  understood  as  it  was  by  the 
first  Christians. 

By  rll  these  instances  then  (and  others,  which  for 


204  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

special  reasons  have  been  deferred  to  the  next 
chapter),  it  appears  that  the  now  prevailing  method 
of  adjusting  the  meaning  of  Holy  Writ  to  such 
scientific  opinions  as  are  generally  (and  as  fast  as 
they  are)  received,  is  very  dangerous  to  the  percep- 
tion and  reception  of  the  highest  truth.  Does  not 
this  demand  a  pause  in  that  movement,  of  all  who 
love  truth  ?  It  is  the  love  of  truth  which  is  supposed 
and  appealed  to  in  all  intelligent  Christians  for  the 
movement.  Some  may  have  been  fearing  that  their 
prejudice  in  behalf  of  religious  faith  would  obstruct 
their  admission  of  some  other  truth  which  "  is  of 
God."  But  may  this  not  be  rather  their  fear  of  the 
scornful  reproaches  of  those,  who,  granting  their 
devotion  to  physical  facts  wherever  they  seem  to  lead 
when  pursued  alone,  do  not  love  the  greater  light  or 
come  to  it ;  as  He  who  is  all  truth  itself  says,  "  Lest 
their  deeds  should  be  reproved." 

But  why  are  you  not  j'et  more  afraid  of  hindering 
that  greater  truth  which  is  faith  in  the  Word  of 
God?  I  also  seem  to  hear  His  voice  now  from 
Heaven  in  the  very  words  He  spoke  upon  this  earth, 
perhaps  then  as  a  prophecy  of  the  foolish  *'  wisdom  " 
of  this  world  which  He  now  sees  among  men : 
"  Heaven  and  earth  (the  very  objects  of  the  supposed 
truth  which  you  now  prefer)  shall  pass  away ;  but 
My  words  shall  not  pass  away." 


OUR  PRESENT  ASTRONOMY  AND   GEOLOGY.  205 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THIS  ACTUAL  INTERPRETATION  BY  OUR  PRESENT  ASTRO- 
NOMY AND  GEOLOGY. 

■TT"T"E  are  warned  by  this  tendency  and  progress 
VV  to  question  even  what  has  been  generally 
allowed  in  our  day,  to  go  back  and  examine  anew  what 
our  present  Greolog}^  and  Astronomy  are  supposed  to 
BSiy  of  the  history  of  Creation,  as  given  in  the  Word  of 
God.  This  is  in  substance,  that  this  world  was  in  a 
process  of  formation  in  layers  of  rock  for  many 
thousands  of  years  before  man  existed  ;  that  the 
stars  moved  in  their  orbits,  and  this  globe  as  one  of 
them,  for  ages  hundreds-fold  of  all  our  history, 
beginning,  if  they  had  any  real  beginning,  as  con- 
densing vapors.  This  is  said  to  be  certain  truth,  so 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  must  agree  with  it,  if  they 
are  true. 

Now  this  contradicts  what  until  our  time  has  been 
always  supposed  to  be  plainly  told  in  the  beginning 
of  our  Holy  Scriptures  :  viz.  that  all  other  Creation 
took  place  within  five  days  before  that  of  man. 
What  then  ought  Christian  believers  to  do  ?  Some 
(but  not  those  most  versed  in  natural  science,  or 
any  whom  it  is  the  intellectual  fashion  to  admire,) 
say  that  this  only  proves  science  to  be  from  the 
Evil  One,  and  that  Christians  ought  to  reject  and 
abhor  it.  Others  who  are  generally  looked  up  to  as 
being  the  best  informed  and  most  liberal  in  thought, 
18 


206  THE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

say  that  the  science  is  certainly  true  ;  and  that  as  all 
truth  is  consistent,  and  as  what  God  says  in  His 
Word  must  agree  with  what  He  says  in  His  works, 
therefore  we  must,  in  order  to  ''  save  faith,"  find  in 
the  Word  some  meaning  agreeing  with  this  science. 
Others  yet  are  perplexed  and  distressed  between 
these  two  parties,  not  wishing  to  reject  any  truth, 
or  to  be  the  ignorant  enemies  of  real  faith,  which 
the  friends  of  science  say  the  first  mentioned  class 
are;  yet  having  an  instinctive  fear  that  faith  has 
more  to  dread  in  the  other  direction. 

Perhaps  there  is  not  yet  enough  known  for  a  final 
judgment  of  the  question.  Pending  this,  and  when, 
ever  such  judgment  is  to  be  made,  the  following 
principles  should  be  observed.*  1.  No  conclusions 
from  other  research  and  study  can  be  as  certainly 
true  as  the  actual  meaning  of  God's  Word.  2.  The 
ill  results  of  a  mistaken  opinion  about  the  earth's 
construction,  would  be  vastly  less  than  those  of  losing 
faith  in  God.  3.  Holy  Scripture  is  complete  in  itself; 
science  immeasurably  incomplete.  4.  The  supposed 
scientific  proofs  after  all  rest  upon  assumptions, 
which,  however  plausible,  are  not  certain,  as  e.  g. 
that  rocks  were  always  formed,  and  vegetable  and 
animal  life  passed  at  the  same  rate  of  time  as  like 
things  occur  now,  or  that  light  travels  from  the 
fixed  stars  at  the  same  rate  of  speed  as  we  measure 
it  in  our  solar  system,  or  that  the  most  remote  star 
was  not  created  with  light  from  it  already  reaching 

r  *  I  make  uo  apology  here  or  elsewhere  for  casual  repetition  of  things 
which  ueed  "  line  upon  line  "  in  our'day. 


OUR  PRESENT  ASTRONOMY  AND   GEOLOGY.  207 

the  earth.*  Who  knows  this  ?  Could  one  of  us  have 
been  alive  "  when  the  earth  was  without  form,  and 
void  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep," 
would  he  not  have  been  "  scientifically  certain  "  that 
there  would  never  "be  light,"  nor  a  "round  world, 
and  they  that  dwell  therein  "  ? 

5.  It  is  possible  that  our  previous  idea  of  what 
God's  Word  did  say  of  these  things  was  our  mistake, 
to  be  corrected,  when  discovered,  with  the  same 
grateful  and  ready  reverence  as  makes  us  prefer  its 
actual  meaning  to  any  opinion.  And  yet  6.  it  is 
possible  that  we  may  yet  find  that  God  chose  to  do 
all  that  work  of  Creation  in  twenty-four,  or  in 
one  hundred  and  twenty  hours  of  our  present  time, 
which  it  is  absurd  to  doubt  that  He  could  do,  while 
it  is  7iot  possible  that  His  Word  is  not  truth. 

Finally,  it  needs  but  a  little  reflection  to  see  that  if  a 
written  "  Word  of  God  "  is  to  be  construed  without 
regard  to  its  apparent  meaning  by  something  outside 
of  itself,  the  real  authority  is  in  this  "  Supreme 
Court  "  of  construction,  whatever  it  may  be.  You 
may  put  any  *'  constitution  "  or  instrument  in 
writing  in  what  words  you  please,  and  if  you  concede 
that  these  words  are  to  mean  whatever  I  say  they 
do,  I  then  am  the  "  constitution."    No  matter  where 

*  Indeed  it  is  far  more  rational  to  think  that  the  Eternal  Lord  made  in 
a  moment  of  time  all  this  Nature,  with  its  suggestion  to  the  merely 
worldly  mind  of  long  processes  of  creation,  meaning  this  as  one  of  those 
mysteries  of  spiritual  discipline  which  we  find  everywhere  else,  and 
which  are  greater  than  all  matter  —  thus  trying  and  training  our  faith  in 
Him,  than  that  He  arranged  in  His  word  such  apparent  contradictions  of 
the  actual  Creation  as  must  perplex  our  faith.  There  is  really  no  firm 
ground  short  of  this  as  far  back  as  the  most  extravagant  theory  of 
"  evolution."  Are  we  to  believe  that  on  the  third  day  the  seed  was 
first  made  and  grew,  or  the  full-grown  tree  created ;  on  the  fifth  day,  the 
egg  with  its  subsequent  growth,  or  the  fall-grown  bird  ? 


208  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT   "  THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 


♦ 


this  infallibility  of  construction  resides;  whether  in 
one  man  over  all  others,  or  each  man  for  himself  in 
his  private  judgment,  or  in  "public  opinion,"  or  in 
that  uncertain  and  irresponsible  collection  of  the 
opinions  of  some  famous  men  which  is  called  science; 
this  which  tells  us  what  the  words  are  to  mean,  and 
not  the  very  words,  is  what  we  shall  then  obey.* 

So   the   very  application   of  this   method   to  the 
Divine  story  of  Creation 

— "must  give  us  pause." 

It  is  not  too  late  for  every  one  who  believes  that  the 
Holy  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  to  mankind,  to 
renounce  any  method  of  construing  it  which  tends  of 
necessity  to  extinguish  its  authority  and  blessing  as 
such.  Any  great  name  which  may  be  cited  in  favor 
of  the  false  principle  is  then  only  a  great  misfortune. 
Therefore  I  must  not  hesitate  to  make  protest  even 
against  Bishop  Butler,  when  he  subjects  Holy  Writ 
in  the  same  way  to  ''  Natural  Eeligion  "  (which  is 
only  a  name  for  some  of  our  fallible  reasonings), 
saying :  "  Indeed,  if  in  Eevelation  there  be  found 
any  passages,  the  seeming  meaning  of  which  is  con- 
trary to  Natural  Eeligion,  we  may  most  certainly 
conclude  such  seeming  meaning  not  to  be  the  real 
one." 

Doubtless  this  great  writer  felt  sure  that  there 

*  This  great  subject  is  not  without  its  difficulties  iu  several  directions. 
All  men  read  God's  Word  in  some  measure  with  prepossessions  of 
education  and  authority.  And  ri-,'htly  so.  Still  it  has  its  own  sense  and 
force.  We  must  endeavor  that  the  authority  which  influences  us  be 
wise,  responsible,  devout;  and  as  being  that  which  the  "  Word"  itself 
recognizes  as  "•  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth." 


OUR  PRESENT  ASTRONOMY   AND  GEOLOGY.  209 

could  be  no  such  occasion  for  changing  the  apparent 
meaning  of  Scripture  as  always  received  in  the 
Church.  But  if  with  his  usual  wise  caution  he  had 
reflected  that  "  Natural  Theology "  has  no  fixed 
standard  and  no  authority  :  is  for  each  man  what  he 
may  think  according  to  his  prejudices  or  moral  per- 
versions ;  that  as  far  as  the  phrase  represents  any 
truth,  we  may  best  get  that  from  Holy  Scripture 
itself;  he  would  not  have  given  his  authority  to  this 
false  principle.  Steady,  obedient,  valiant  faith  in  the 
Word  of  God  will  not  be  looking  for  these  new 
reasonings.  Weak  doubt  will  only  grow  more  timid, 
and  perverse  unbelief  more  obstinate  for  such  sugges- 
tions. It  is  rash  and  foolish  to  say  that  he  who  dis- 
believes your  science  because  he  believes  that  it  con- 
tradicts the  Word  of  God,  is  an  ignorant  bigot, 
rather  than  he  who  doubts  or  misconstrues  that 
Word  because  he  believes  the  science.  Of  the  two, 
probably  the  latter  is  "  wise  "  only  in  his  own  con- 
ceit, and  "  the  fool  "  in  fact. 

Another  point  of  view  from  which  to  examine  the 
same  question  is  as  to  the  different  provinces  of  reli- 
gious and  scientific  knowledge.  In  that  division 
surely  Creation  and  Providence  lie  in  the  domain  of 
Religion  ;  so  thought  the  Christian  men  of  science 
of  an  earlier  time,  from  Copernicus  to  Newton.  But 
it  is  just  there  that  science  now  assumes  dominion 
and  launches  its  edicts  ;  in  that  of  Providence  by  the 
very  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  "j  in  that  of  Creation 
by  its   scientific  "  cosmogonies."*     Our  philosophic 

*  Their  only  resemblance  to  the  Divine  history  is  that  the  theories  are 
** without  form  and  void"  and  "  darkness  is  upon  the  face  of  the  deep," 


210  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 


Christians  do  make  some  resistance  in  the  region  of 
Providence  and  contend  for  faith  and  prayer,  though 
quite  inefficiently  on  account  of  their  fatal  conces- 
sion of"  laws  of  Nature." 

But  upon  the  cosmogony  they  seem  as  if  "  there 
was  no  breath  left  in  them."  And  what  is  the 
cosmogony  in  plain,  honest,  Christian  English  ?  It 
is  the  Creation  of  "  all  things  visible."  The  Book  of 
God  begins  with  it.  That  event  and  that  history  of 
it  are  often  mentioned  in  other  parts  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, even  by  Our  Lord  Himself.  There  is  nothing 
more  Divinely  sublime  in  all  the  Book.  To  my  best 
reason  it  seems  surpassed  by  nothing  else  as  a  matter 
of  revelation,  that  Cod  Our  Heavenly  Father  would 
in  His  love  tell  us  how  the  Universe  we  live  in  and 
behold  began,  as  He  alone  could  tell  it. 

Applying  again  a  true  principle,  we  should  say 
rather  that,  since  any  loss  of  faith  in  God  and  His 
Word  is  far  worse  for  our  or  any  age,  than  to  check 
the  advance  of  human  science,  it  is  the  wisest  love  of 
truth  to  distrust  and  decline  the  scientific  conclusions 
wherever  they  ask  us  to  change  the  apparent,  simple 
meaning  of  that  Word.  Let  us  recall  certain  words 
which  we  might  even  expect  our  own  sober  reason 
to  utter  in  warning;  but  which,  coming J'rom  God 
above,  are  plainly  His  reproof  of  that  intellectual 
folly  of  our  age  :  "  Where  wast  thoii  when  I  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  earth?"  &c.  [Job  xxxviii.  4-7.]* 
There  seems  to  be  in  many  minds  a  thought,  per- 

*  The  eager  credulity  of  some  of  our  Christian  scholars  in  all  the  asser- 
tions and  inferences  of  geologists,  following  their  crudities  and  changes 
with  such  wresting  and  adjusting  of  the  Divine  words  as  may  make  an 
idem  so7ians,  is  ludicrous  and  pitiable. 


OUR  PRESENT   ASTRONOMY  AND   GEOLOGY.  211 

haps  never  yet  set  forth  in  words,  which  influences 
their  judgment  of  this  question.  For  this  reason, 
and  also  in  anticipation  that  it  may  be  given  in  reply 
to  this  argument,  it  needs  notice  now.  It  is  that 
there  is  something  in  the  accumulated  knowledge  of 
natural  processes,  and  generalizing  of  them,  and  per- 
haps besides  in  the  great  number  of  ingenious  machines 
and  the  vast  amount  of  reading  and  of  readers  which 
distinguishes  the  nineteenth  century  from  any  other 
age,  that  it  must  make  new  rules  and  principles  for 
itself;  so  that  what  was  wise  and  well  enough  for 
all  former  generations  would  not  be  so  now ;  that 
we  have  outgrown  all  their  garments  both  in  dimen- 
sions and  fashion. 

With  all  just  allowance  for  what  has  been  gained 
in  the  above-mentioned  respects,  the  possible,  the 
probable  consequences  of  such  an  intoxicating  folly 
as  I  describe,  in  destroying  for  us  all,  what  certainly 
always  is  of  value  to  men,  the  wisdom  of  experience, 
and  that  given  from  heaven  long  ago  to  the  whole 
race,  are  truly  terrible.  Certainly  natural  sciences, 
machines  and  newspapers  do  not  make  what  was 
spiritually  true  for  mankind  in  the  first  century  any 
less  so  in  the  nineteenth.  Fortunately  there  is  a  great 
beacon  of  positive  truth  fixed  in  the  midst  of  the 
ages,  which  does  not  vary  with  the  supposed  dis- 
coveries of  men  either  by  increase  or  diminution. 
But  if  we  subject  this  also  to  change  by  new  inter- 
pretation of  its  plain  words;  or  if  we  answer  its 
mighty  condemnation  of  some  of  our  false  notions 
which  tend  to  obscure  the  truth  of  God,  by  silence 
about  what  it  would  mention  if  true — answer  this  by 


212  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF  LAW." 

saying  that  only  now  are  mankind  intelligent  enough 
to  comprehend  the  new  truth  (e.  g.  of  a  "  reign  of 
law  ") ;  that  this  ia  why  the  "  modern  thought "  is 
not  recognized  in  Holy  Scripture,  then  the  mischief 
is  without  a  remedy. 

"  There  is  more  hope  for  a  fool  than  for  a  genera- 
tion thus  '  wise  in  its  own  conceit '."  Let  us  always 
remember  that  the  Word  of  God  began  to  come  to 
man  in  the  early  ages  of  the  world,  when  the  purest 
traditions  of  the  primitive  and  innocent  knowledge 
of  Him  remained  least  corrupted  by  the  increasing 
false  religion  and  wicked  living.  Had  there  been 
any  such  divine  traditions  of  "  laws  "  and  "  forces  of 
Nature,"  we  should  find  traces  of  them  now  in  that 
written  Word.  Were  that  notion  such  a  necessary 
one  in  the  true  contemplation  of  the  works  of  God 
as  it  is  now  commonly  assumed  to  be,  we  should  find 
it  in  the  thoughts  of  such  wise,  great-souled  and 
deep-thinking  men  as  Moses  and  Job. 

Then  these  holy  writings  continue  increasing  with 
a^wonderful  order  and  history  of  development  until 
a  "fulness  of  time  "  comes,  when  they  are  completed 
with  circumstances,  and  with  express  words  too, 
which  assure  us  that  at  last  we  have  all  that  God  will 
say  most  distinctly  to  man  in  this  world.  Only 
reverent  and  grateful  obedience  are  now  left  to  us. 
For  any  of  these  later  generations  to  fancy  that  it 
has  achieved  some  knowledge  beyond  this  in  religion, 
or  in  matters  any  way  bearing  upon  religion,  is  mere 
folly.  The  very  utmost  it  can  do  in  the  highest 
knowledge,  and  more  than  it  will  do  in  fact  at  the 
best,  is  to  learn  and  obey  the  New  Testament. 


THE   PERSECUTION  OF   GALILEO.  213 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  PERSECUTION  OF  GALILEO  ;    AND,  IS  THE  NOTION  OP 

A  "reign  of  law"  necessary  to  scientific 

INVESTIGATION  ? 

THE  religious  opposition  300  years  ago  to  the 
Copernican  astronomy,  and  especially  the 
prosecution  and  retraction  of  Galileo,  are  always  now 
brought  forward  as  conclusive  proof  that  the  Word 
of  Grod  must  never  be  cited  against  a  supposed 
demonstration  of  "science."  But  the  cases  are  not 
parallel.  The  words  about  the  "rising"  and  "set- 
ting "  of  the  sun  have  not  been  altered  in  our  Bibles 
since  the  sixteenth  century,  nor  does  any  one  ever 
try  to  "  reconcile  "  them  with  science  then  condemned 
as  heretical,  but  which  all  Christians  now  receive 
for  truth.  We  have  not  changed  our  familiar  lan- 
guage about  the  same  things.  Children  and 
astronomers  alike  describe  the  same  phenomena  in 
the  same  way  as  they  did  before  this,  and  as  the 
Holy  Scriptures  did  and  do. 

That  was  also  really  a  contest  between  two 
scientific  parties,  and  not  merely  as  to  whether  we 
could  believe  the  Divine  Word  unless  as  construed 
by  human  science.  The  old  or  Ptolemaic  party 
resisted  the  new  or  Copernican  by  every  argument 
and  means  they  could  find.  They  appealed  to  the 
appearance  of  the  sun  every  day  traversing  the  sky, 
and  to  the  word  of  Holy  Scripture  expressing  the 


314        THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LA.W." 

same.  It  was  as  if  some  one  who  now  ignorantly 
believes  that  account  of  the  solar  system  were  to 
argue  with  you  that  it  must  be  true,  since  you  can- 
not help  saying  always  that  the  sun  rises  and  sets. 
The  argument  against  Galileo  had  indeed  more 
effect,  because  it  appealed  then  in  behalf  of  a 
previous  opinion  to  the  wise  aversion  of  Christian 
believers  to  adjusting  God's  Word  to  men's  science. 
This  even  if  you  call  it  a  prejudice  is  more  akin  to 
truth  than  the  self-sufficient  levity  which  loves 
change  for  its  own  sake.  All  reverence  and  faith 
involve  some  pre-judgment.  When  this  is  employed 
upon  true  religion,  candor  and  truth  are  also  of  the 
company,  and  any  errors  of  opinion  at  first  main- 
tained are  not  seriously  mischievous  and  soon  dis- 
appear. 

It  was  so  in  that  controversy.  We  are  all  Coper- 
nicans  now,  but  this  has  not  changed  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  single  word  of  Holy  Writ,  or  the  substance 
of  its  truth  to  us  by  the  minutest  shade,  nor  at  all 
weakened  men's  faith  in  it  as  all  Divine.  Will  any 
one  who  understands  the  facts  seriously  maintain 
that  the  dispute  about  Galileo  is  to  be  compared  for 
its  influence  upon  the  religion  of  the  people,  with  the 
great  ferment  in  all  minds  over  geology,  "  biology," 
and  the  *'  reign  of  law,"  the  pending  debate  before 
all  people  about  what  belief  and  reverence  are  due 
to  the  historical  Christian  faith  ?* 

*The  decree  of  the  Roman  Inquisition  in  that  case  begins  thus:  "  The 
proposition  that  the  sun  is  the  centre  of  the  world  and  immovable,  is 
absurd,  j^hilosophically  false,  and  heretical,"  etc.  We  are  no  way  res- 
ponsible for  the  acts  of  the  Koman  Inquisition,  least  of  all  committed  to 
any  Papal  approval  or  infallibility.  It  is  agreed,  however,  that  a 
religious  opposition  to  the  Copernicau  astrononi^y  was  made  throughout 
Christendom,  upon  the  same  mistaken  grounds. 


THE  PERSECUTION   OP   GALILEO.  215 

But  this  is  not  the  only  matter  of  difference.  The 
religious  oj^position  to  the  Copernicans  was  not 
because  they  denied  things  supernatural.  The 
theory  of  motion  of  earth  or  sun  lay  altogether 
within  the  natural.  Whichever  was  true  it  described 
the  usual  order,  and  had  no  more  to  do  with  spiritual 
faith  than  the  contest  between  undulatory  and 
atomic  theories  of  light.  No  suggestion  was  made 
in  behalf  of  the  new  knowledge,  that  in  consequence 
of  it  men  could  not  believe  the  miraculous  things 
which  are  told  in  Holy  Scripture.  The  greatest 
philosophers  of  that  age  were  indeed  all  of  them 
devout  believers  of  the  Gospel,  who  had  not  only  no 
wish,  but  no  thought  or  fear  to  impair  its  authority. 
We  may  challenge  the  citation  of  any  sentence  of 
theirs  to  the  effect  that  God's  Word  is  to  be  construed 
and  understood  anew  by  the  new  science :  that 
Christian  men  are  to  labor  anxiously  to  "  reconcile  " 
the  old  and  Divine  to  the  new  and  human,  so  as  to 
make  it  rational  and  possible  to  believe  in  God. 
The  question  with  them  was  the  reverse  of  this  ; 
their  concern  was  to  make  sure  that  God's  Word  did 
not  make  their  science  incredible  by  contradicting  it. 

But  what  all  the  scientific  Christian  men  are  now 
busy  with,  is  to  make  an  alarmed  and  all  but  des. 
pairing  effort  to  "  bridge  over  the  chasm  between 
Christian  belief  and  modern  thought/'  *  while  the 
other  men  of  science  tell  them  that  they  are  too  late, 
that  they  must  make  their  choice  between  the  two. 
They  add  with  a  sort  of  lofty   melancholy — and 

*  ChriBtlieb. 


216        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD   NOT   "  THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

contempt,  that  while  Christian  faith  is  a  fine  thing 
for  those  who  are  ignorant  enough  to  keep  it,  it  is 
henceforth  impossible  for  a  thoughtful  man.  Thus 
the  whole  case  is  changed.  The  fact  that  religious 
feeling  three  centuries  ago  was  engaged  on  the  side 
of  the  Ptolemaic  astronomy  against  the  Copernican, 
and  that  we  all  now  see  that  this  was  wrong,  does 
not  prove,  nor  in  the  remotest  degree  go  to  prove, 
that  we  ought  to  change  the  apparent  and  heretofore 
accepted  meaning  of  Holy  Scripture,  on  account  of 
the  science  of  our  times.  To  surrender  the  old 
prejudice  then,  would  have  been  right.  To  yield 
the  false  principle  now  put  forth,  is  wrong. 

He  who  will  consider  profoundly,  and  clearly  set 
forth  the  wide  difference  between  that  controversy 
of  the  sixteenth  century  and  this  of  the  nineteenth, 
will  do  a  great  service  to  Christendom.  But  without 
that,  those  who  are  perplexed  by  the  reasonings  in 
question,  and  still  more  disheartened  by  the  readiness 
of  many  Christian  writers  to  make  the  fatal  conces- 
sion, while  no  voice  seems  to  dare  make  remonstrance, 
may  well  take  heart  again.  Let  them  say  firmly  : 
''We  cannot  yield  this  (whatever  you  makers  of 
discourses  and  books  may  choose  to  do,)  without 
losing  some  of  our  old  reverence  and  trust  for  the 
Word  of  God.  And  what  was  said  three  hundred 
years  ago  of  its  meaning  about  sunrise,  or  what  was 
done  to  Galileo  in  1632,  has  no  force  to  compel  such 
a  dreadful  concession  from  us." 

If  it  be  insisted  that  science  needs  this  idea  of  the 
"reign  of  law  "  for  its  further  progress,  let  us  candidly 


THE  PERSECUTION   OF   GALILEO.  217 

consider  what  force  this  should  have.  It  is  true, 
that  the  notion  of  "  laws  of  Nature  "  and  its  various 
expressions,  now  runs  through  scientific  language 
aud  even  popular  use.  For  this  last  reason  it  has 
become  almost  impossible  to  make  one's  self  under- 
stood in  any  discussion  without  using  those  terms. 
But  if  the  essential  idea  be  false,  that  is  only  another 
instance  of  how  dangerous  a  falsehood  it  is,  and  of 
the  urgent  necessity  of  correcting  it.  To  decide 
that  it  was  true  merely  because  it  appears  so  much 
in  our  current  language,  would  be,  after  all  that  has 
been  shown  in  disproof,  very  irrational. 

However,  it  is  another  argument  in  behalf  of  the 
"reign  of  law,"  and  deserves  an  answer,  if  it  be 
alleged  that  this  theory  being  dismissed,  the  progress 
of  scientific  investigation  would  cease. 

Now  as  far  as  concerns  the  term  "law,"  some  of 
the  chief  discoverers  in  science  always  protested  that 
in  speaking  of  "  laws  of  Nature,"  they  meant  only 
"  general  facts,"  and  that  this  conception  was  suflS- 
cient  for  their  researches.  Others  of  them  have  gone 
yet  further,  expressing  regret  that  the  term  had 
gained  such  vogue,  aud  apprehensions  of  its  irre- 
ligious tendency  if  not  always  fully  explained  in 
their  sense.  If  these  could  persist  and  could  succeed 
in  scientific  pursuits  without  the  idea  objected  to,*= 
why  might  not  all  others  now  and  hereafter? 

But  some  one  may  say  that  "  even  these  must  of 
necessity  have   reall}^,  if  unconsciously,  maintained 

*But  would  tl*eynot  have  done  better  yet  to  discard  the  needless  and 
even  misleading  phraseology  ? 

19 


218  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

in  their  thoughts  (though  from  some  prejudices  or 
mistaken  alarm  about  its  bearing  upon  religion  they 
disclaimed  it,)  the  idea  of  a  *  reign  of  law  ';  of  an 
unbroken  and  irrefragable  chain  of  all  causes  and 
effects,  from  the  beginning  of  the  present  order  (if 
it  ever  had  a  beginning,)  an  actual  force  and 
mechanism  including  all  the  '  Cosmos  '  and  exclu- 
ding any  interfering  will,  only  upon  the  certainty  of 
which  '  law '  could  they  proceed  to  extend  the 
knowledge  of  mankind  by  observing  more  phenomena, 
making  experiments  and  discovering  new  '  laws,' 
really  old  as  the  universe,  but  new  to  the  delighted 
vision  of  investigating  man." 

Now  this  may  be  the  form  in  which  some  minds 
still  adhere  to  the  notion  which  we  have  already 
so  fully  tried  by  the  Word  of  God  and  our  best 
reason.  And  as  so  stated  it  is  a  mere  begging  of  the 
question.  For  what  right  have  any  to  assume, 
without  specific  reasons  given,  that  Newton  must 
have  been  supremely  governed  in  all  his  discoveries* 
by  a  belief  which  ho  disclaims?  But  allowing  for  a 
prepossession  to  this  effect,  let  us  confront  it  with  the 
following  facts  and  reasons. 

1st.  It  is  certain  that  a  considerable  part  of  science 
was  gained  without  the  theory  of  a  "reign  of  law." 
Take  for  an  instance  of  this  the  great  period  of  dis- 
covery from  Copernicus  to  Newton.  Indeed,  the 
theory  is  rather  claimed  as  itself  one  of  the  last  and 
greatest  achievements  of  science.*  If  it  be  the 
architrave  of  that  edifice,  it  cannot  be  the  founda- 

*  G.  C.  Lewes,  Aristotle,  &c. 


THE  PERSECUTION   OF  GALILEO.  219 

tion  stone.  Why  should  I  insist  upon  it  against  the 
express  denials  of  men  of  such  thought  and  truth,  that 
this  notion  was  with  them  the  unconscious  instinct  of 
the  investigating  mind,  without  which  it  could  not  love 
and  achieve  knowledge  ?  It  has  been  already  in  these 
pages,  upon  other  and  sufficient  grounds,  shown  to 
be  a  false  notion.  It  is  a  monstrous  thought  then 
that  truth  can  be  only  sought  and  gained  by  man 
upon  the  instinct  of  A  false  notion.  Why,  indeed, 
may  he  not  seek  out  the  works  of  God  in  all  of  true 
science  while  believing  them  to  be  simply  and  imme- 
diately the  ivorks  of  God  ?  Because  he  cannot  then 
have  any  thought  of  them  as  in  a  usual  order  and 
almost  invariable  succession  ?  This  misapprehension 
has  been  already  exposed. 

But  let  us  bring  it  to  trial  by  a  fact.  I,  for  instance, 
do  not  believe  in  a  "reign  of  law."  But  I  do  believe 
that  God  causes  all  existence,  motion  and  life  in  every 
successive  instant  by  His  loving  will ;  that  by  that 
loving  will  He  does  this  in  an  order,  in  ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand  curious  relations,  which  I  can  see 
and  investigate ;  that  so  by  His  love  we  may  have 
forethought  and  enjoy  the  ingenuity  of  discovery ; 
increase  our  pleasures,  relieve  our  pains  and  cares, 
and  those  of  our  fellow-men  ;  be  patient  and  hopeful, 
and  grow  in  wondering  adoration  of  Him.  Why,  then, 
might  I  not,  if  other  things  favored,  devote  myself 
with  patient  and  hopeful  ardor,  going  on  from  the 
present  point  of  science,  like  Mr.  Tyndall,  to  a  further 
knowledge  of  light,  or  of  birds,  like  a  Duke  of  Argyll  ? 
I  have  every  rational  and  innocent  stimulus  which 
they  have  in  the  love  of  knowledge  and  the  emulation 


220  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

of  a  glorious  history.  My  security  that  the  Cosmos^ 
SO  far  explored,  extends  far  into  the  yet  unknown, 
is  at  least  as  great  in  my  faith  of  a  gracious  Eeign 
of  God,  as  their  sin  the  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law." 
But  Ave  should  do  injustice  to  the  supreme  and 
transcendent  truth  to  subject  it  to  this  condition. 
It  would  be  folly  to  surrender  that  truth  if,  and 
because,  we  could  not  see  how,  in  accord  with  it, 
human  science  could  advance.  At  the  most  this 
would  only  prove  that  man's  thought  and  language 
were  so  imperfect  that  they  could  no  longer  be 
employed  in  the  direction  of  scientific  research,  with- 
out a  false  notion  which  would  degrade  our  souls 
much  more  than  any  knowledge  of  animals  or  of 
plants  could  ennoble  them.  It  might  be  then  that 
we  could  not  any  longer  increase  our  store  of  such 
facts  or  widen  our  view  over  them  with  further 
generalizations,  unless  we  darkened  our  spiritual 
vision  of  the  One  Only  and  True.  If  the  spokesmen 
of  science  can  show  these  to  be  the  alternatives, 
then  the  choice  will  soon  be  made  by  the  lovers  of 
real  truth.  For  themselves  and  for  all  their  brother- 
men  (including  those  who  would  deride  them  for  it), 
they  would  say,  Let  us  never  have  another  ''  dis- 
covery ";  let  us  even,  if  that  were  possible  and  neces- 
sary, go  back  to  know  no  more  of  all  this  than  did 
Abraham  or  Job,  St.  John  or  St.  Paul,  rather  than  in 
the  least  dim  the  glorious  vision  of  G-od  in  His 
Word,  His  Church,  and  "  the  sure  and  certain  hope  " 
of  another  life  near  at  hand,  when  we  are  to  live  in 
His  presence  and  know  all  that  can  delight  and 
exalt  the  soul  of  man. 


MORAL  AND   SPIRITUAL   EFFECTS.  231 


CHAPTER    XV. 

THE    QUESTION    BETWEEN    THESE    TWO    IDEAS    TRIED     BY 
THEIR    MORAL    AND    SPIRITUAL    EFFECTS. 

IF  we  could  even  suppose  that  the  result  of  our 
investigation  so  far  is  only  to  make  it  doubtful 
which  of  the  two  is  the  true  idea,  or  to  leave  it  at 
last  a  matter  of  consequences  and  expediency  which 
to  choose,  there  still  remains  that  great  question  of 
probable  truth,  Which  of  them  is  the  more  for  the 
welfare  of  mankind,  and  will  best  promote  the  good- 
ness of  Grod  to  man  ?  This  enquiry  will  certainly 
show  whether  our  main  question  may  be  dismissed 
as  not  of  practical  importance.  It  is  true  enough 
that,  as  Bacon  says,  the  pursuit  of  "  final  causes," 
that  is,  conjectures  why  things  are  as  they  are,  is 
rather  misleading  in  the  investigation  of  physical 
facts.  But  in  this  higher  question  of  the  love  of  Grod 
in  all  His  works,  to  omit  these  great  spiritual  facts 
would  be  feebleness  and  folly  itself.  As  we  know 
that  God  is  love,  more  certainly  than  we  know  the 
magnitude  and  motion  of  our  earth,  so  we  know  that 
no  belief  is  true  which  does  not  accord  with  that 
love.  Therefore,  as  between  the  two  theories  of  the 
Universe  now  before  us,  that  is  the  true  one  to  hold 
which  best  promotes  the  spiritual  good  of  mankind 
as  God  declares  it  in  His  Gospel. 


222  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD    NOT   "  THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

What  a  man  needs  most  to  avoid  and  to  oppose 
within  himself  is  self-conceit,  selfishness,  worldliness 
and  blindness  to  spiritual  and  Divine  things.  What 
he  needs  most  to  acquire  and  increase  is  humility, 
penitence,  self-denial,  faith  in  God,  and  obedient  love 
of  Him  "  with  all  the  heart "  and  unselfish  love  to 
his  fellow-men.  Of  the  two  it  is  the  easy  thing  and 
suits  the  self-indulgent  and  unspiritual  temper,  to 
believe  that  everything  moves  around  us  in  mechan- 
ical order,  and  so  to  be  prudent  and  industrious 
(and  investigating?)  for  ourselves,  and  exact  in  our 
judgment  of  others  who,  from  ignorance  or  negli- 
irence,  "  violate  the  laws  of  Nature."  But  it  needs 
every  lofty  motive,  and  every  frequent  reminder  of 
our  weakness,  and  the  constant  vision  of  Divine 
things  by  faith,  and  spiritual  grace  and  salvation 
given,  to  keep  one  a  good  Christian.  So  God,  in  His 
Holy  Word  and  Church,  reminds  us  continually  that 
this  self-abasement  and  unlimited  loving  faith  in  Him 
are  the  real  necessities  and  the  glory  of  our  life.  He 
promotes  humility  and  faith  among  men,  not  only 
by  direct  precepts,  but  by  providing  them  with  all 
"  means  of  grace."  Does  He  not  bestow  the  other 
blessings  of  life  and  all  its  true  knowledge  with  the 
same  purpose  and  effect?  Is  it  not  best  for  iis  to 
receive  them  so  ? 

The  man  who  sees  the  immediate  act  of  God  in  all 
things,  as  compared  with  one  who  has  the  mechanical 
idea  of  Providence,  is  reminded  of  Him  b}^  ever^^ 
innocent  desire.  That  desire  becomes  at  once  a 
loving  prayer,  which  employs  the  words  of  an  ador- 


MORAL   AND   SPIRITUAL   EFFECTS.  333 

ing  poet  of  old,  *'  Thou  art  my  God."     This  worship 
does  not  need  the  process  of 

"looking  through  Nature  up  to  Nature's  God," 

which  sounds  so  well  in  the  modern  poet's  verse,  but 
which  is  in  method  so  remote,  and  in  the  practice  of 
those  Avho  talk  about  it  so  infrequent.  He  need 
look  through  nothing.  •'  He  hath  set  God.  always 
before  him,^^  The  precepts  and  the  promises  about 
prayer  in  Holy  Writ  are  in  natural  accord  with  his 
usual  thoughts,  and  do  not  need  to  be  emptied  of  all 
their  Divine  warmth  and  color  in  adjustment  to  a 
"reign  of  law."  This  gives  him  peace,  joy  and  hope 
that  are  indescribable.  Yet  the  same  sense  of  imme- 
diate and  incessant  dependence  upon  Him  who  is 
"All  in  All,"  teaches  the  deepest  humility.  It  pro- 
claims the  greatness  of  Grod  as  nothing  else  can.  No 
dim  mist  of  "  Nature  "  obscures,  or,  as  rather  is  its 
tendency,  quite  shuts  off  the  glorious  vision.  The 
infinite  multitude  and  minuteness  of  His  doings,  so 
far  from  suggesting  to  this  man  that  it  is  not  the 
Good  One  in  person  who  does  all,  only  makes  it  the 
plainer  to  him  that  it  is  He  "  with  Whom  we  have 
to  do  "  directly  in  all. 

But  even  more  does  it  disclose  His  glorious  pres- 
ence in  that  which  is,  if  we  may  without  irreverence 
so  express  ourselves,  God  more  essentially  than  any- 
thing else — His  love.  There  is  a  reality  and  warmth 
and  power,  (which  must  be  greatlj^  lessened  to  our 
apprehension  by  any  agents  or  mechanism  inter- 
posed,) in   acts  of  grace  all  alike — little  and  great, 


224  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

natural  or  supernatural,  bodily  or  spiritual — done  in 
person.  You  may  to  your  mind  correctly  argue  and 
unanswerably  demonstrate  that  this  should  not  be 
my  thought;  but  nevertheless  it  will  be  so.  You 
may  "  prove  "  that  the  pleasant  food  which  I  now 
enjoy  (and  for  which,  perhaps,  when  I  saw  no 
natural  means  of  getting  my  daily  bread,  I  earnestly 
prayed),  would  come  to  me  as  much  by  the  love  of 
God  if  it  were  the  result  of  a  vast  and  inconceivably 
complicated  set  of  forces,  put  in  motion  six  thousand 
years  ago,  to  give  to  each  of  millions  of  millions  of 
creatures  its  thousands  of  supplies,  as  if  He  had 
attended  in  person  to  my  recent  needs  and  cries ;  but 
I  shall  not  believe  it. 

I  cannot  then,  when  I  adore  Him,  take  up  His 
own  words  and  say,  "  Thou  openest  Thy  hand  and 
fillest  all  things  living  with  plenteousness."  No  ;  a 
mechanical  provision  for  my  wants,  by  a  "  reign  of 
law,"  is  not  the  same  thing  as  Divine  *'  loving-kind- 
ness and  tender  mercy,"  and  my  feeling  about  this 
is  a  more  direct  apprehension  of  the  truth  than  your 
reasoning.  That  notion  of  Divine  Providence 
through  **  laws  of  Nature,"  casts  a  chillj^  shade  of 
doubt  and  unreality  over  all  those  affecting  and 
inspiring  sayings  of  God's  Word  about  His  hearing 
the  cries  and  supplying  the  wants  of  each  one  that 
calls  upon  Him.  It  is  thus  not  onl}^  untrue,  but  the 
most  mischievous  untruth,  as  it  defeats  the  very 
purpose  of  God's  love,  in  so  revealing  His  love  and 
grace  as  to  make  us  humble  and  believing  and  un- 
worldly ;  steadfast  and  happy  in  spite  of  any  cares  or 
extremities,  and  full  of  grateful  love  to  Him. 


MORAL   AND   SPIRITUAL   EFFECTS.  225 

In  truth,  the  love  of  God  is  the  great  solution  of 
all  these  questions.  The  why  of  all  things  is  thus 
absolutely  known  to  us.  Final  causes  are  not  barren 
puzzles  in  such  investigations  as  ours.  There  is  one 
great  and  certain  pur2)ose  in  all  that  is :  a  most 
glorious  and  magnificent  Person  does  it  all  in  love, 
which  includes  the  fact  that  all  the  creatures  which 
He  has  made  sensitive  should  have  enjoyment,  and 
all  those  in  His  own  image  in  the  capacity  of  loving, 
should  have  their  greatest  enjoyment  in  that,  the 
greatest  exercise  of  it  being  toward  Him.  So,  as  was 
pointed  out  early  in  this  investigation,  to  attempt  it 
with  the  exclusion  of  this  greatest  fact,  as  mislead- 
ing from  the  "  dry  light  "*  of  pure  reason,  is  a  search 
for  truth  upon  condition  of  avoiding  truth.  Cold 
reasoning  is  in  this,  false  reasoning. 

We  may,  by  our  artificial  media,  separate  the 
heating  and  illuminating  rays  of  the  sun.  But  no 
such  process  is  possible  for  the  light  of  the  Sun 
Eternal.  It  is  the  same  one  indivisible  emanation, 
of  which  there  can  be  no  analysis,  which  gives  us 
our  life,  shows  us  truth,  makes  us  happy  now,  and 
restores  and  augments  our  lost  heavenly  future. 
Only  in  that  light  may  we  see  light  on  this  great 
question.  The  love  of  God  alone  accounts  for  His 
doing,  as  He  "  alone  doeth  great  wonders,"  as  well  of 
the  usual  order  we  call  "  Nature,"  as  of  miracles. 
It  alone  accounts  for  His  revealing  them  to  us.  It 
alone  is  the  method  and  form  of  all.  It  is  the 
supreme,  the  everlasting,  the'  sole  purpose  of  it  all. 

*  Sucli  a  lumen  sicciim  is  ignis fatiius. 


326  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

To  investigate  the  general  truths  of  ''Nature  "  and 
Providence,  then,  upon  the  method  of  excluding  the 
consideration  of  the  love  of  God  as  irrelevant  and  a 
matter  not  of  truth  but  of  sentiment,  is  as  if  one 
should  begin  the  study  of  astronomy  by  excluding 
every  fact  about  the  stars.  This  is  why  all  philosophy 
when  it  has  handled  these  matters,  has  been  so 
feeble,  so  confused,  and  so  barren  of  results.* 

Some  of  the  Christian  writers  do  indeed  expatiate 
upon  what  they  call  ''  evidences  of  benevolent 
design."  But  this  is  very  weak  and  cold,  and  so 
different  from  what  God  Himself  tells  us  of  His  love, 
that  it  is  no  Avonder  it  has  had  so  little  power  to  con- 
vince and  command  the  minds  of  men.  So  far  as  it 
gives  any  distinct  idea  of  the  One  Who  is  All  in  All, 
it  is  of  a  huge  human  intelligence  which  amuses 
itself  with  an  easy,  tepid  good  nature  in  kindly 
ingenuities.  This  does  not  correspond  to  the 
powerful  truth  in  Holy  Scripture. 

As  the  belief  that  God  does  all  things  immediately, 
continually  reminds  us  of  His  love,  and  promotes 
love  of  Him,  while  the  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law  " 
has  the  contrary  effect,  so  also  does  the  former 
"teach  us  to  pray,"  while  the  other  discourages 
prayer.  This  duty,  as  our  religion  presents  it  to  us 
in  Holy  Writ  and  in  all  its  other  institutions,  is 
asking  of  God  what  we  desire  and  He  has  to  give. 
We  have  but  to  consider  in  what  things  we  are  His 
**  needy  creatures,"  and  the  particulars  of  our  prayers 

*  See  Appendix  A  on  Metaphijsics.—U  -philosophy  is  to  be  a  seelving  of 
truth,  it  must  either  avoid  all  spiritual  matters,  or  in  them  distinctly  sub- 
ject itself  to  true  religion  as  the  highest  authority  for  such  truth. 


MORAL   AND   SPIRITUAL   EFFECTS.  227 

present  themselves.  The  wants  of  physical  life,  the 
escape  from  its  fears  and  dangers,  the  relief  of  pains 
and  griefs,  the  moral  dangers  of  this  world,  the 
perils  and  the  hopes  of  what  is  "after  death." 

Now,  according  to  the  "  reign  of  law,"  at  least 
almost  all  of  these  things  are  disposed  with  mechan- 
ical precision,  so  that  our  prayers  have  no  sort  of 
effect  upon  them.  \Ye  can  affect  this  only  as  we 
obey  or  disobey  such  "laws  of  Nature  "  as  we  know, 
but  they  will  occur  no  differently  for  any  words  or 
thoughts  which  we  address  to  God.  I  scarcely 
know  whether  any  one  will  seriously  contend  that  I 
am  as  likely  to  pray  for  these  things  (which  is  the 
question  before  us  now),  with  that  belief,  as  if  I 
looked  for  them  to  the  gracious  will  of  God  without 
a  notion  of  "  the  reign  of  law."  *  I  am  sure  that  I 
could  not. 

There  are  elaborate  (and  as  the  writers  are  inge- 
nious men,  we  must  suppose  them  ingenious)  argu- 
ments ifi  books  to  prove  that  our  prayers  are  them" 
selves  a  part  of  the  machine  of  "  laws."  But  I  can 
find  no  force  of  truth  in  these  reasonings.  I  can  see 
that  if  one  submits  to  the  assumption  of  a  "reign  of 
law,"  there  arises  a  sort  of  religious  necessity  to  con- 
struct some  such  argument.  But  I  have  no  need  of 
it,  for  1  do  not  allow  that  false  assumption ;  its 
absurdity,  even  in  this  one  instance,  should  make  one 
reject  it. 

Certain   Christian  writers  resolved  to  find  some- 

*  Imagine  my  applying  to  the  proprietor  of  our  leading  newspaper  as 
it  was  rolling  out  from  the  great  power  press  to  have  a  paragraph  of 
mine  appear  in  those  very  columns. 


228         THE  REIGN  OP   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

thing  religious  in  that  theory,  and  hardly  able  to 
deny  its  repugnance  to  prayer,  have  said  that  it 
promotes  the  praise  of  God.  They  aver  that  science 
enlarges  our  knowledge  of  God's  works,  that  we  now 
know  of  the  vast  magnitudes  and  multitude  of 
heavenly  bodies  and  their  all  but  infinite  distances 
and  movements;  of  the  almost  infinite  minuteness 
which  the  patient  studies  of  naturalists  with  the 
microscope,  and  chemists  with  the  spectroscope, 
reveal ;  so  that  we  may  behold  much  more  of  the  great- 
ness of  God,  and  adore  Him  more.  Is  this  last  so  in 
fact  ?  Is  our  age  one  that  worships  as  no  former 
generation  ever  did  ?  and  do  we  find  most  of  this 
deep  religion  in  those  who  know  most  of  the  science  ? 

Doubtless  all  such  true  knowledge  may  be  and 
should  be  used  to  glorify  the  Great  and  Ever  Blessed 
God.  But  the  coldness  of  devotion  in  many  chief 
men  of  science,  and  the  contemptuous  indifference 
and  doubt,  even  plain  atheism  of  many  others  of 
them,  is  a  terrible  set-oif  to  the  supposed  gaii^  in  the 
right  direction.  Nor  even  is  that  the  worst  of  it.  It 
is  a  fair  statement  of  the  fact  that  the  prevailing 
fashion  among  those  most  famous  and  successful  in 
these  pursuits  is  to  treat  all  thought  of  God  and 
Divine  things  as  the  "  unknowable."  Is  knowledge 
gained  by  the  suppression  of  religious  thought,  upon 
the  whole  a  gain  to  religion  ? 

Thus  this  very  increase  of  knowledge  of  stars, 
plants,  and  animal  life,  if  pursued  as  a  science 
founded  upon  the  "reign  of  law,"  sofar  from  making 
men  love  and  praise  God,  is,  in  the  main,  of  an  irre- 


MORAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  EFFECTS.  229 

ligious  tendency.  A  man  who  knows  no  more  of 
these  things  than  David  the  King  of  Israel  did,  will 
be  moved  by  what  he  does  see  to  praise  God,  far  more 
than  one  whose  greatly  enlarged  knowledge  of  what 
the  Maker  has  done,  has  been  gained  by  ascribing  all 
to  some  imagined  power  or  mechanism  which  he 
calls  "  Nature."  If  he  will  renounce  that  fiction  and 
agree  with  me  in  seeing  the  will  and  act  of  God  in 
everything,  we  can  always  join  in  the  anthem,  "  All 
Thy  works  praise  Thee !  " 

Another  part  of  our  religion  is  to  believe  the 
marvellous  things  which  God  has  done,  out  of  that 
usual  order  which  we  call  "  nature."  The  notion  of 
a  "  reign  of  law  "  opposes  this  faith  as  it  does  prayer 
and  praise.  Many  incidental  illustrations  of  this 
have  already  occurred  in  the  course  of  this  investiga- 
tion. We  have  then  the  same  necessity  of  our  Chris- 
tian men  of  science,  and  the  same  attempt  on  their 
part  to  construct  a  theory  by  which  miracles  accord 
with  the  "  reign  of  law."  And  we  have  the  same 
failure  in  it.  Why  does  not  the  real  resolution  of 
this  difficulty  occur  to  them  ?  Like  other  great 
truths,  its  very  simplicity  and  obviousness  baffle 
some  ingenious  minds.  The  notion  of  a  "  reign  of 
law  "  cannot  be  adjusted  to  that  greatest  truth,  the 
Gospel  of  God,  because  it  is  not  true  itself. 

But  before  we  make  a  final  scrutiny  of  what  is 
said  of  the  Divine  miracles  being  "  interpositions  "  in 
laws  of  Nature  and  the  like,  let  us  observe  the  bear- 
ing upon  the  whole  question  of  certain  other  works 
and  gifts  of  God  for  which  we  call  upon  Him  by 
20 


230  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD    NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

pra3"cr,  and  which  no  one  supposes  to  come  by,  or 
according  to,  those  "laws."  Men  either  disbelieve 
entirely  in  the  spiritual  blessings  as  needful  to  every 
soul,  such  as  repentance,*  a  ''  new  heart "  "  renewed 
tlay  by  day,"  peace  of  soul,  consolation  in  trouble, 
&c.,  or  they  agree  that  these  come  direct  "  from 
above."  Nor  are  they  thought  to  be  miraculous 
and  extraordinary  interpositions  in  the  "  reign  of 
law."  They  are  too  frequent  for  this,  even  incessant 
and  normal  according  to  the  spiritual  order.  Yet  it 
is  impossible  to  separate  them  from  "  natural " 
events.  The  latter  are  often  by  our  experience 
among  the  means  by  which  God  gives  us  the  former, 
and  they  are  often  so  related  in  the  Divine  history. 
Thus  the  stumbling  of  a  horse  in  a  rough  roadway 
may  bring  a  man  to  hear  the  very  words  which  will 
bring  him  to  embrace  Our  Lord's  salvation.  Or  a 
child's  death,  which  did  not  occur  at  all  supernatur- 
ally,  may  change  the  Avhole  spiritual  life  of  its 
mother,  or  a  desolate  heart  be  filled  with  joy  and 
thankfulness  to  God  by  some  event  in  the  ordinar}' 
course  of  things,  but  which  we  call  with  truth  a 
"  good  Providence." 

Here  is  a  vast  complex  of  direct  acts  of  God,  not 
only  equally  numerous  and  normal  with  the  others, 
but  while  parallel  with  them,  having  innumerable 
reciprocal  dependences  and  connections.  They  occur 
upon  the  occasion  of  human  prayers,  with  all  the 
irregularity  in  time  and  inconsistencies  in  desire  of 
millions  of  men's  wills ;  (or  if  we   could   leave  these 

*"  Then  hath  God,  &e.,  granted  repentaitceS  &c.— Acts  xi.  18. 


MORAL  AND   SPIRITUAL  EFFECTS.  231 

praj^ers  out  of  account,  according  to  the  spiritual 
needs  of  men  immeasurably  varied  by  their  desires 
and  acts).  It  is  then  impossible  that  the  other  set 
of  events  should  occur  in  an  invariable  mechanical 
order.  But  if  such  '^  laws  of  Nature  "  are  always  set 
aside  for  these  incessant  spiritual  purposes,  the  last 
idea  of  "  law  "  in  them  has  disappeared  ;  it  is  not  clear 
which  is  the  "law"  and  which  the  "interference." 
The  scientific  man  would  tell  you  that  there  was 
nothing  worth  contending  for  as  "  law  "  in  such  a 
case. 

The  "  reign  of  law  "  once  conceded,  the  common 
device  for  maintaining  faith  in  the  Divine  miracles, 
is  to  say  that  Clod  "  reserved  to  Himself  a  power  to 
interpose "  in  some  rare  cases  in  the  inexorable 
action  of  "  law."  I  was  never  able  to  satisfy  myself 
with  this  even  when  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty 
had  not  occurred  to  me.  I  did  not  find  it  in  Holy 
Scripture,  nor  anything  suggesting,  equivalent  or 
corresponding  to  it.  I  had  a  painful  feeling  that  it 
violated  my  highest  and,  therefore,  truest  apprehen- 
sion of  God.  Was  this  an  instinct  of  truth  or  a  false 
prejudice?     Let  us  try  this  by  our  best  reason.* 

To  "  interpose  "  is  to  come  between  two  or  more 
objects,  or  place  something  else  between  them.  If 
we  use  such  terms  of  the  acts  of  God,  it  must  be  by 
analogy  to  what  a  man  can  do.  Thus  one  of  us  can 
interpose  a  shield  between  another  man  and  a  flying 
missile,  or  he  can  interpose  between  two  combatants, 

*In  what  win  be  said  of  "interposition"  are  included  all  other  ex- 
pressions which  are  used  to  express  the  same  substantial  theory  of 
Divine  miracles  along  with  "laws  of  Nature,"  such  as  "interference" 
with,  or  "  suspension  "  or  "  violation"  of,  these  "laws.'» 


232        THE  REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW. 


or  in  any  contest  of  others.  But  certainly  the  occa- 
sion of  this  must  be  something  outside  of  himself. 
We  should  all  smile  at  the  absurdity  of  saying  that 
a  man  interposed  in  what  he  was  doing  in  person. 
So  when  we  apply  these  terms  to  what  God  does,  we 
should  with  reasonable  care  consider  how  far  they 
can  represent  what  is  Divine.  When  He  uses  words 
to  tell  us  of  Himself,  then  of  course  they  come  the 
nearest  possible  to  complete  truth  that  our  poor 
speech  and  intelligence  allow  of.  But  when  we 
employ  them  to  relieve  our  difficulties  of  thought 
about  Him,  we  cannot  be  too  cautious  lest  we 
transfer  what  describes  human  weakness  to  the  con- 
ception of  the  Almighty  One. 

In  what  true  sense  then  does  God  "  interpose," 
when  instead  of,  as  in  His  usual  order  of  power, 
causing  water  to  continue  where  water  was,  His  will 
is  that  there  should  be  wine  in  place  of  it  ?  No  more 
than  a  man  interposes  in  his  own  actions  when, 
having  a  usual  practice  of  sending  water  to  his  sick 
and  needy  neighbor,  he  chooses  to  send  him  wine 
instead.  If  we  seek  for  something  analogous  in 
human  action  to  represent  the  supposed  case  as  to 
God's  miracles,  that  ages  before  them  the  whole  area 
of  being  and  life  was  filled  up  with  unvarying 
"  laws,"  while  the  very  idea  of  a  miracle  is  of  some- 
thing which  does  not  occur  according  to  those 
"  laws ";  it  would  be  the  case  of  a  man's  having 
made  an  all  but  perfect  machine  with  a  complete 
foresight  of  all  its  future  working.  Would  we  ever 
speak  of  his  "  interposing,"  even  less  of  his  "  having 


MORAL   AND   SPIRITUAL   EFFFXTS.  333 

reserved  to  Himself  the  power  to  interpose  "  in  this 
working,  for  other  purposes  equally  foreseen  by  Him 
from  the  very  first  ?  All  these  analogies  do,  indeed, 
fail,  but  in  the  opposite  direction,  from  curing  the 
absurdity  of  this  theory  of  power  reserved  by  God 
to  interfere  in  His  own  wnll  and  work.  A  man  is 
always  surrounded  by  force  entirely  outside  of  him- 
self or  his  will.  His  very  best  contrivances  are  but 
the  partial  adjustment  and  use  of  w^hat  is  being  done 
by  Another's  will.  His  best  forethought  of  what  is 
to  be  and  what  he  will  yet  wish,  is  but  weak  conjec- 
ture. Nothing  occurs  to  God  but  what  is  His  own 
will,  and  always  perfectly  foreknown  to  Him. 

This  gratuitous  and  awkward  fiction  would  never 
have  been  invented  but  for  the  embarrassment  of 
their  faith,  which  Christians  have  brought  upon 
themselves  with  the  false  notion  of  "  laws  of  Nature." 
One  late  writer  even  maintains  this  upon  the  ground 
that  the  immediate  will  of  God  in  all  things  would 
deny  His  "  immutability."  After  much  ponder- 
ing I  am  unable  to  find  any  truth  or  even  meaning 
in  this.  Is  the  "immutability"  immovability? 
There  seems  to  lurk  here  unconsciously  a  mistake 
about  God  which  would  deny  His  person  and  will, 
make  Him  less  than  a  mere  mechanism,  only  the 
machine  itself;  which  tends  to  the  religion  of  a  dumb 
idol,  and  even  to  atheism  at  last.  '*  Immutability," 
as  we  little  creatures  can  define  it  of  the  Eternal  and 
Infinite  One,  is  only  as  He  pleases  to  tell  us  that  His 
goodness  and  truth,  unlike  the  best  of  men's,  cannot 
change  so  as  to  disappoint  our  faith  in  Him.     This 


234  THE   REIGN   OF   C40D   NOT   "THE   KETGN    OF   LAW. 

has  nothing  to  do  with  the  notion  that  some  thous- 
ands of  years  ago  He  made  a  great  machine  of  this 
Cosmos,  and  then  left  it  to  run  perfectly  and  irresistibly 
by  its  own  force,  except  as  He  might  approach  it  upon 
some  very  rare  occasions,  to  "  interpose"  in  it  with 
miracles.  The  true  unchangeable7iess*  of  God  may, 
indeed,  make  me  happy,  as  I  see  that  He  is  doing 
everything  now  in  person,  and  that  He  will  do  all 
with  the  same  love  and  truth  forever.  It  is  not 
merciless  and  voiceless  mechanism  miscalled  '•  law," 
nor  absurd  "  interposition." 

But  were  there  any  force  in  this  argument  of 
"  immutability,"  it  would  exclude  "  interposition." 
That  would  be  precisely  mutability.  Let  us  return 
to  real  first  principles.  The  Maker  of  all  existed 
without  and  before  all  else.  Whatever  natures  or 
necessities  they  have,  are  such  because  He  chose  to 
make  them  such.f  In  this  will  of  Creation  He  saw 
all  that  was  to  be  (that  has  been  and  yet  will 
be).  A  mechanism  constructed  with  a  reserved 
power  to  interpose  in  it  upon  special  occasions  could 
only  be  in  anticipation  of  some  emergency  not  then 
foreseen.  Otherwise  the  Almighty  constructor  would 
make  those  occasions  a  part  of  the  original  design 
and  future  working.  Whatever  reason  is  alleged 
for  the  mechanism  at  all,  is  as  true  of  such  perfect 
construction  of  it  by  Him  to  whom  all  things  are 
alike  eas}^  and  all  perpetually  present.     So  some  of 

*  That  is  a  better  word  than  inwmtability,  which  is  never  said  of  God 
Himself  in  llis  Word.  Indeed,  the  word  only  occurs  in  our  English 
Bible  in  regard  to  His  spiritual  grace  and  purposes. 

t  See  Appendix  G  as  to  the  false  notion  prevailing  about  "  eternal 
principles  "  and  Conscience.    Also  Chapter  XVII.  on  "  Law." 


MORAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  EFFECTS,  335 

these  apologists  begin  to  see ;  and  now  they  retreat 
from  the  new  difficulty,  to  the  position  that  all  which 
is  miraculous  and  spiritual  in  our  religion  is  a  part 
of  this  invariable  ''law."*  But  this  is,  if  possible, 
more  untrue  than  the  other.  It  is  contrary  to  all 
the  plain  language  of  G-od's  Word,  and  to  the  nature 
of  a  free  will  such  as  He  has  given  to  each  of  us,  and 
to  His  own  freedom,  as  the  Infinite  and  Most  G-lorious 
Idea  of  a  person  and  will. 

Thus  it  is  a  powerful  suggestion  to  every  one  who 
loves  God  and  believes  Him  in  the  Gospel,  that  the 
present  Reign  of  God  and  not  a  "  reign  of  law  "  is 
the  truth,  in  that  the  former  promotes  while  the 
latter  discourages  humility,  prayer,  faith  in  His 
"Word,  and  love. 

*  See  "  Reign  of  Law  "  by  Duke  of  Argyll,  «S;c. 


236  THE  REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW. 


CHAPTEE   XYI. 

''  SPECIAL    PROVIDENCES." 

ONE  sometimes  hears  well-intending  Christian 
people  say,  "  Do  you  believe  in  special  Provi- 
dences ?  "  Is  this  a  real  doubt  whether  G-od  takes 
any  notice  of  us  as  individuals  ;  "  of  our  necessities 
before  we  ask  and  our  ignorance  in  asking,"  although 
He  says  to  us,  "  Ask  and  ye  shall  receive  "  ?  If  so, 
this  doubt  must  come  from  a  false  notion  that  some 
supra-deical  power  limits  His  promise.  What  can 
that  power  be  ?  The  Divine  Will  Itself,  bound  by 
itself  at  Creation  not  to  do  other  than  what  would 
occur  whether  men  asked  it  of  God  or  no  ?  To  say 
nothing  of  this  absurdit}^  (as  exposed  already)  of 
law  self-imposed  upon  Clod's  Will,  it  is  impossible* 
that  He  thus  abridges  His  own  grace,  since  He  has 
commanded  us  to  believe  in  it. 

And  what  does  any  man  mean  by  "  special  Provi- 
dence"? The  Divine  Providence  cannot  but  be 
**  special"  in  the  just  sense  that  God  knows  each  of 
us  personally  in  all  that  affects  our  life,  and  that  He 
provides  for  it  with  this  complete  knowledge,  with 
unlimited  power,  and  with  infinite  love.  If  we  will 
not  believe  this  because  we  think  that  individual 
persons  (unless  they  are  very  important  or  represen- 
tative ones),  may  be  (or  must  be  ?)  overlooked  in  the 

*This  we  can  say  without  presumption,  "  for  it  is  impossible  for  God 
to  lie." 


"  SPECIAL  PROVIDENCES."  237 

very  great  number  of  them  ;  or  that  the  business  of 
this  Providence  is  so  vast  and  complicated  that,  as  in 
the  best  human  administrations,  chisses  only  can  be 
attended  to  and  individual  interests  must  often 
suffer;  then,  though  we  speak  of  "God,"  we  are 
thinking,  not  of  the  True  Infinite  and  Most  Grlorious 
One,  but  of  some  fiction  of  our  minds  under  that 
name. 

The  true  God  says  :  "  Known  unto  God  are  all 
His  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  "  [Acts 
XV.  18].  "This  poor  man  cried  and  the  Lord  heard 
him  and  delivered  him  out  of  all  his  distress." 
[Ps.  xxxiv.  6].  "  Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a 
fiirthing?  and  one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the 
ground  without  your  Father;  but  the  very  hairs  of 
your  head  are  all  numbered "  [St.  Matt.  x.  29,  30]. 
Is  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  the  same  assertion 
running  through  it  all,  the  Word  of  God  to  us,  or 
no  ?  Indeed,  if  we  do  not  see  Holy  Scripture  full  of 
His  notice  of  persons,  and  especially  of  His  gracious 
attention  to  the  prayers  of  whosoever  calls  upon 
Him,  be  it  even  the  captive  in  the  dungeon  or  a 
little  child,  then  it  is  not  the  real  Word  of  God  to 
us  ;  we  are  obscuring  its  illumination  of  our  souls  in 
all  other  matters  as  well  as  this,  and  promoting  un- 
belief among  other  men.  These  Divine  sayings 
agree  only  with  a  true  thought  of  One  to  Whose 
knowledge,  power,  will,  and  attentive  love,  there  is 
absolutely  no  limit,  and  Who  can  as  easily  see  and 
do  a  million  things  in  a  moment  as  one.  So  far 
then  as  we  regard  an  infinite  minuteness  and  multi- 


238        THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

tude  of  objects  in  immediate   Providence,  it  is  only 
impossible  for  this  to  be  impossible  to  God. 

Probably  the  honest  Christian  would  say  at  last : 
"I  do  not  mean  to  doubt  what  God  says.  To  think 
as  you  do,  is,  indeed,  most  consoling  and  elevating  ; 
and  it  makes  all  the  Bible  real  and  true  to  me.  But 
tell  me,  can  we  think  that  God  would  derange  all 
this  vast  order  to  grant  one  of  my  requests  ?  Would 
it  not  bring  into  what  is  so  nicely  balanced  and 
adjusted  a  confusion  which  could  not  be  remedied  ? 
And  then  if  I  can  be  thus  gratified,  so  must  thous- 
ands of  thousands  of  others  ;  and  all  harmony  of 
Nature  and  forethought  of  man  will  be  at  an  end. 
Does  He  not  any  way  do  all  things  well,  having  so 
foreseen  and  devised  everything  from  the  beginning  ? 
Does  He  not  expect  us  simply  with  faith  in  the 
general  good  to  submit  to  this  and  make  the  best  of 
it  for  that  general  good  in  which  we  have  our  fair 
part  ? 

Why  then,  I  reply,  did  He  tell  you  to  pray,  and 
that  with  an  express  assurance  that  He  would  do  as 
you  asked?  (We  may  dismiss,  without  a  direct 
notice,  the  monstrous  answer  sometimes  given  to  this 
question  by  Christian  writers  who  attempt  philo- 
sophy where  philosophy  has  no  business  ;  an  answer 
which  never  did  and  never  ought  to  satisfy  a  single 
soul,  viz.:  that  it  was  to  make  our  souls  tranquil  and 
pious,  though  He  has  no  intention  of  doing  anything 
more  or  less  whether  we  pray  or  not.)  Any  faith  in 
God  shows  us  that  His  requiring  and  granting  our 
prayers  and  telling  us  in  His  Word  that  He  does  so, 


"SPECIAL   PROVIDENCES."        *  239 

proves  that  our  doubting  questions  are  mistakes  and 
infirmities  of  our  own  minds.  If,  then,  these  doubts 
come  immediately  from  a  notion  that  Divine  Provi- 
dence is  a  great  machine  of  causes  and  effects,  this 
shows  that  notion  to  be  false.  Let  us  retire  upon 
this  solid  rock  of  truth,  that  God  can  and  will  do  all 
that  He  says  He  will.  Let  what  must  be  dismissed 
from  the  mind  be,  not  that  faith,  but  the  notion 
which  contradicts  it. 

Suppose,  as  an  example,  that  last  week  you  set 
out  at  nightfall  of  a  winter's  day  upon  a  journey  of 
many  hours  by  rail ;  that  before  going  to  sleep  in  the 
'* palace-car "  you  prayed  God  for  a  safe  journey; 
that  just  before  the  break  of  day  you  were  awakened 
by  a  dreadful  sound  and  violent  motion,  whereupon 
you  called  upon  God  for  deliverance  from  sudden  and 
great  danger.  In  a  few  seconds  all  was  still ;  but 
you  and  your  fellow-travellers  found  yourselves  upon 
the  floor  of  the  car,  which  lay  in  a  steep  incline.  You 
were  all  (including  a  worldly  and  profane  man 
whose  place  was  next  yours),  safe,  except  as  there 
lay  a  little  way  off  the  crushed  and  lifeless  body  of 
an  excellent  woman,  whose  life  had  seemed  invaluable 
to  her  family  and  to  God's  Church  where  she  belonged 
to  it.  As  daylight  came  and  you  could  see  what  had 
happened,  it  appeared  that  a  broken  rail  had  thrown 
the  whole  train  violently  down  a  steep  bank  ;  that  the 
car  in  front  of  yours  had  rolled  over  several  times  in 
the  descent,  killing  or  maiming  every  one  within  it, 
but  that  a  little  tree  had  caught  the  corner  of  yours 
before  it  had  turned  over  once,  and  thus  saved  life 


240  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

and  limb  for  every  one  within  it  but  the  unfortunate 
lady. 

(I  must  confine  myself  to  but  one  incident  of  this 
illustration,  and  not  apply  the  true  principle  to  the 
two  cases  of  the  good  woman  or  the  worldly  man. 
True  faith  in  God  according  to  His  own  words  to  us 
has  its  sufficient  answer  to  the  cavils  which  are 
raised  about  such  cases,  as  well  as  that  directly  pur- 
sued here.  It  must  be  sufficient  here  to  say  that  the 
common  notion  which  has  been  followed  above  in 
calling  one  who  has  suddenly  "  died  in  the  Lord," 
unfortunate,  is  all  wrong.  Those  who  lament  then 
may  be  unfortunate;  they  are  certainly  blessed; 
while  we  are  to  be  sure  that  their  cases  as  well  as 
those  of  the  selfish  and  impious  who  escape  great 
perils,  are  according  to  the  perfect  justice  and  good- 
ness of  God.) 

What  would  you  think  and  say  in  such  a  case  ? 
As  you  believe  in  God,  and  in  proportion  as  you  do, 
your  first  thought  would  be:  "Thanks  be  to  God 
Who  heard  my  prayer  for  safety  last  night,  Who 
heard  my  cry  for  succor  this  morning,  and  saved  me 
with  a  great  deliverance !  "  But  would  this  be 
right?  or  would  it  be  a  delusion,  irrational  and 
superstitious?  Ought  you  to  correct  it  by  the  reflec- 
tion that  the  rail  was  broken  by  the  uniform  "  laws 
of  Nature,"  in  the  structure  of  the  iron  according  to 
its  original  ore  and  its  actual  manufacture,  with  the 
great  cold  of  the  season?  That  this  dangerous  rail 
was  just  at  this  dangerous  embankment;  that  you 
were  travelling  then  and  there  ;  that  the  little  tree 


"SPECIAL   PROVIDENCES."  241 

was  growing  just  where  it  was ;  that  at  the  fatal 
moment  your  car  was  just  where  it  was  (the  matter 
of  a  second  of  time  determined  by  the  fireman  having 
opened  the  furnace  door  a  h'ttle  before  at  one  moment 
rather  than  another);  that  you  were  there  instead 
of  in  the  seat  occupied  by  the  person  who  was 
injured ;  that  all  this  was  determined  by  invariable 
"  laws  of  Nature,"  so  that  you  would  be  alive  and 
unhurt  now  whether  you  had  prayed  or  not ;  so  that 
God  did  7iot  look  upon  you  at  that  moment  with 
grace  and  save  you?  that,  therefore,  your  gratitude 
and  adoration  are  absurd  ? 

At  which  time  were  you  really  most  wise  ?  and 
did  you  see  things  as  they  really  are  ?  When  you 
thought  of  God  with  awe  and  love  ?  or  when  you 
were  philosophically  ungrateful  ? 

We  may  now  apply  with  all  and  more  than  its 
force  in  such  uses,  the  very  principle  of  all  supj^osed 
demonstration  of  "  laws  of  Nature  ":  that  whatever 
general  proposition  accounts  for,  and  agrees  with,  all 
the  "  known  facts  "  is  true.  Whatever  things  are 
true  about  our  higher  nature  and  our  spiritual  and 
immortal  welfare,  are  at  least  as  much  facts  as  an}^- 
thing  about  rocks  and  fossils.  Among  such  facts  of 
the  highest  order  are  these,  that  "  men  ought  always 
to  pray,"  and  that  they  are  free  to  choose  good  or 
evil.  Now  it  has  been  plainly  shown  that  the  theory 
of  a  "  reign  of  law  "  is  in  utter  discord  with  these 
facts.  How  can  I  then  rationally  assent  to  it?  How 
can  I  do  otherwise  in  adherence  to  truth  than 
reject  it  ? 
21 


242  THE  REIGN  OP   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

I  know  that  some  persons  follow  aiiolber  method, 
of  being  satisfied  with  a  supposed  accord  of  "  the 
reign  of  law  "  with  all  physical  facts  ;  and  then  either 
pass  over  the  others  without  notice,  or  assume  that 
the  discord  is  only  in  appearance,  and  hunt  for  the 
clue  to  some  yet  undiscovered  truth  which  is  to  har- 
monize all,  or  are  so  bent  upon  absolute  assertion  of 
the  theory  that  they  profess  themselves  fiiWy  satis- 
fied with  notions  of  prayer  and  free-will  which  con- 
tradict all  my  reason.  But  why  is  not  mine  the  true 
"  scientific  "  method,  of  rejecting  the  "  reign  of  law  " 
because  it  does  not  agree  with  the  chief  facts  ?  Of 
course  then  if  any  future  discoveries  remove  the  dis- 
crepancy, the  way  will  be,  so  far  forth,  clear  for 
reasonable  assent.  But  pending  them,  such  assent  is 
not  reasonable. 


LAW.  243 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

LAW. 

WHEN  writers  use  the  term  "  laws  of  Nature  " 
and  the  like,  some  even  now  admit  as  most 
formerly  distinctly  defined,  that  these  are  in  no  sense 
really  laws,  but  the  convenient  statement  of  a  general 
fact.  And  why  then  am  I  not  content  with  this  ? 
Some  of  my  devout  friends  have  even  said,  "  You  and 
these  Christian  writers  who  maintain  '  the  reign  of 
law  '  really  mean  the  same  thing,  and  it  is  but  a  ques- 
tion of  words."  1  should  be  glad  to  think  so,  and 
especiall}'  to  believe  that  such  use  of  the  term  law  is 
harmless  and  proper.  But  I  cannot ;  for,  as  I  think, 
besides  what  to  this  effect  has  been  already  proved, 
I  shall  now  be  able  to  show  to  all  fair-minded  persons 
that  there  is  a  false  principle  and  an  evil  tendency 
of  thought  and  life  involved  in  all  this  use  of  the 
term  -'law"  in  regard  to  mechanical  and  phj^sical 
things. 

But  first  let  me  invert  the  question  above  and  ask 
my  interrogators,  AVhy  then  do  you  insist  upon 
speaking  of  '■  laws  "  which  you  say  j^ourselves  are 
not  really  laws^  and  when  these  phrases,  as  has  even 
been  already  shown,  have  such  false  uses  and  evil 
tendencies,  or  at  least  of  which  some  of  your  fellow 
Christians  have  such  fears?  Ts  this  '-required  of 
(lod  in  Hol}^  Scripture"?  No  one  will  say  that.  On 
the   eontrar}',  we   have   already  seen   that   it   is  not 


244        THE   KEIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

according  to  that  Word  of  God,  "  but  rather  repug- 
nant thereto."  Why  not  then  cancel  it  from  all  our 
expressions  ?  If  this  deprives  us  of  a  brief  and  con- 
venient phrase  in  ordinary  language  or  scientific 
research,  that  is  little  compared  with  the  least  devia- 
tion from  truth.  It  will  really  save  some  words ; 
for  then  we  will  not  need  these  frequent  apologies 
and  protestations  as  to  what  we  do  7iot  mean  by 
"  law."  Then  also  it  is  agreed  by  all  careful 
thinkers  that  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  false  reason- 
ing is  the  use  of  words  with  two  or  more  different 
senses.  Anyway,  with  you,  it  is  only  a  question  of 
words  ;  with  us  it  is  one  of  supreme  principle. 

Law,  in  its  primary  and  necessary  meaning, 
implies  that  a  superior,  rightful  authority  imposes 
its  will  upon  its  subjects.  It  needs  two  free  per- 
sonal wills  :  the  one  commanding,  the  other  choos- 
ing to  obey  :  a  Person  or  persons  giving  law,  a  per- 
son or  persons  who  should  obey  it,  but  whose  action 
would  not  be  obedience  unless  they  were  also  free 
to  disobey  at  the  peril  of  wickedness  and  punishment. 
It  is  so  with  "  the  powers  that  be  "  in  human  law.* 
If  in  speaking  of  obedience  to  God  we  were  only 
making  the  best  possible  attempt  to  express  Divine 
things  in  human  language,  using  those  terms  of  our 
own  action  which  came  nearest  to  them,  we  should 
call  His  commands  "  laws." 

But  probably  the  truth  lies  deeper  than  this.  As 
man's  first  conception  o?  ix  ]jerson  was  not  of  himself, 
but  of  his  Eternal  Lord,  so  his  first  thought  of  law 

*  "  Law  is  the  expreseion  of  legislative  will."— Code  of  Louisiana. 


LiLW.  245 

was  of  the  commands  of  that  Person.  Then  we 
properly  apply  this  to  all  rightful  authority  which 
He  appoints  and  delegates  to  some  of  us  over  others, 
and  especiall}'  to  the  rules  enacted  by  legislatures, 
and  executed  by  magistrates,  for  the  peace  and  safety 
of  nations.  Only  with  this  accords  what  He  says  in 
many  sentences  of  His  Written  Word  :  as  for 
instance  :  "  There  is  no  power  but  of  God  ":  "  There 
is  One  Lawgiver." 

But  as  we  look  above  ourselves  for  this  true  idea 
of  law,  and  find  it  in  the  Word  of  God,  we  see  that 
it  is  not  the  will  of  mere  power  ("  arbitrary  " — as 
men  say)  —  nor  of  supreme  power  with  mere  justice 
(as  the  very  highest  analogy  of  human  law  suggests), 
but  that  law  belongs  to  that  most  glorious  Divine 
mystery  of  the  love  of  God.  It  is  by  this  love  that 
He  has  made  certain  things  right  and  just  for  men. 
He  has  made  these  laws  of  love  for  us,  that  we  may 
do  His  will  perfectly  and  happily  by  loving  Him 
and  our  fellow-creatures.  This  truth  is  as  simple  as 
a  little  child's  mind,  and  at  the  same  time  as  pro- 
found as  the  Divine  Eternity  :  deeper  than  all  the 
thoughts  of  all  our  sages. 

j^^ow,  nothing  can  be  more  against  this  supreme 
law  of  love  than  forgetfulness,  doubts,  and  even 
denials  that  God  is  a  Person.*     Some  men  seem  to 


♦This  term  is  used  with  entire  faith  in  that  great  mystery  of  the 
"Holy,  Blessed  and  glorious  Trinity— three  Persons  and  one  God."  It 
is  from  the  poverty  of  human  speech  to  express  such  truth,  that  "per- 
son" must  be  used  in  different  senses.  Here  it  is  necessary  to  declare 
that  God  is  the  One  who  is  all  that  we  can  ever  suppose  of  a  person,  of 
which  other  persons  are  only  partial  instances,  as  opposed  to  the  sort  of 
atheism  called  "pantheism,"  which  uses  the  Divine  name  without  it4 
meaning. 


246        THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

achieve  the  same  baleful  result  by  the  intellectual 
perversity  of  denying  that  we  of  mankind  are  per- 
sons, that  we  have  a  real  knowledge  and  will  of 
choice  of  good  rather  than  evil.  This  overthrows 
the  law  of  God  :  for  persons  only,  and  not  merely 
helpless 

— "  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole," 

can  love  and  obey  Him.  But  this  doubt  or  denial  of 
our  own  personality  is  an  even  less  insane  (or  un- 
sound) exercise  of  thought  and  wicked  will,  than  to 
destroy  the  possibilit}'  of  our  loving  God  by  denying 
**  that  He  is."*  It  is  mere  self-deception  in  any  man 
to  persuade  himself  that  any  toleration  of  the  word 
God  saves  the  man  who  sa\'S  there  is  no  such 
Person,  from  being  an  atheist.  We  can  only  love  a 
Person.     Try  it  but  once.     "  Thou  shalt  love  with 

all  thy  heart,"  etc. "  the  All  "  ?  the  *'  soul  of  the 

world"?  —  the  sum-total  of  all  matter  and  motion, 
which  is  not  a  person?  It  is  absurd.  It  is  profane. 
So  even  short  of  this  miserable  atheism,  any  doubt 
that  God  is  the  Absolute  Person,  or  an}^  cold  inat- 
tention to  that  truth,  is,  in  proportion,  against  the 
law  of  love. 

It  is  a  fact  that  while  the  Word  of  God  in  His 
Book  and  Church  expresses  this  truth  of  Him  as  a 
Person  with  wonderful  simplicity  and  power,  and  so 
all  Christendom  is  still  penetrated  with  it,  this  influ- 
ence is  opposed  by  the  idea  of  Natural  law  in  various 

*  •'  He  that  cometli  unto  God  mii^t  believe  that  He  is  "— i.  e.  that  He 
it»  what  He  is  essentially.  The  pantheistic  loord  U  nothing.  The 
hatred  of  modern  atheis^ts  is  asains't  "  a  pergonal  God." 


LAW.  247 

shades  of  opinions.  Thus  some  who  are  at  the  very 
head  of  "  Science  "  now,  state  it  just  as  Sjnnoza  did 
two  hundred  years  ago  :  '*  The  laws  of  Nature  are 
the  only  realization  of  the  Divine  Will :  if  anything 
in  Nature  would  happen  to  contradict  them,  God 
would  contradict  Himself."  Others  say,  as  Leibnitz 
did,  that  while  God  in  Creation  disposed  the  parts  of 
'*  Nature  "  "  in  such  a  manner  that  they  are  able  of 
themselves  to  execute  their  functions  and  maintain 
their  activity,"  He  still  reserved  a  power  of  extra- 
ordinary interference.  Others  admit  that  it  is  going 
too  far  to  assert  such  automatic  mechanical  "  forces  "; 
that  God  does  indeed  do  everything,  but  that  the 
"  laws  of  Nature  "  are  such  as  He  in  Creation  "  bound 
Himself"  by,  in  what  He  was  yet  to  do.  While 
others  yet,  as  though  no  man  dare  reject  the  term 
ilself,  yet  shrinking  from  the  presumption  of  this 
last  assertion  as  well  as  those  other  deviations  from 
the  true  faith  of  God,  say  they  only  mean  by  ''  laws 
of  Nature,"  the  general  facts  which  are  so  far  dis- 
covered by  human  science,  or  supposed  to  be. 

Let  us  carefully  observe  the  necessary  effect  of 
any  of  this  use  of  the  term  "  law  "  upon  the  obedi- 
ence of  real  law,  that  is,  true  religion  and  virtue. 
The  demonstration  which  has  been  already  made  of 
"  the  reign  of  God  "  in  all  things,  that  all  existence, 
force,  motion  and  life  is  always  simply  His  immediate 
will,  has  prepared  for  a  true  conception  of  the 
tendency  of  these  terms  "  laws  of  Nature  "  and  the 
like.  Thus  then  we  know  of  "  Nature,"  that  in  the 
beginning  God  created  all.     This  was  the  first  of  all 


248  THE  REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

substance,  force  or  life  other  than  Himself.  So  also 
everything  continues  to  be  what  it  is  and  to  do 
what  it  does  because  He  wills  so.  If  it  only  cease  to 
be  His  positive  will  that  it  should  exist,  by  that  it 
ceases  to  be.  The  real  existence,  the  real  force  of 
anything  is  His  will.  Strictly  speaking,  we  cannot 
call  anything  else  force ;  as  e.  g.  to  say  that  a  stone 
falls  b}"  the  force  of  gravity.  The  real  cause  and 
force  is  the  Will  of  God  that  this  should  take  place, 
which  if  it  should  cease  {e.  g..  if  we  could  suppose 
such  a  thing,  by  His  mere  inattention  to  matter)  all 
that  we  call  force  of  gravitation  would  instantly 
cease.  Gravitation  then  is  a  result,  not  u  cause;  an 
effect,  not  a  force. 

So  far  then  as  we  think  and  speak  correctly,  we 
mean  by  this  and  like  expressions  the  observed  fact 
that  e.  g.  all  parts  of  matter  tend  toward  one 
another,  whether  this  describe  the  movements  of 
stars  in  curves  of  a  thousand  millions  of  miles,  or 
those  of  a  tear  roiling  down  a  cheek.*  But  we  may 
have  a  wrong  notion  that  the  "law  "  or  "  force  of 
gravitation  "  is  an  existing  power,  which  with  energy, 
extent,  and  infinite  minuteness  too,  all  not  less  than 
Divine,  of  itself  does  innumerable  "great  wonders." 
In  that  case  we  probably  suppose  this  to  have 
begun  with  the  Creation,  and  so  by  the  will  of  God. 
But  we  suppose  it  after  that  to  have  force  in  itself 
("  a  certain  independence,"  as  Christlieb  says,) 
which  will  continue  indefinitely,  unless  the  Creator 
puts  a  stop  to  it.     This,  indeed,  is  the  notion  in  its 

*I  cite  purposely  this  celebrated  illaetration  of  a  "•  law  of  Nature," 


LAW.  249 

least  irreligious  form,  which  prevails  and  grows  by 
the  use  of  such  terms  as  "  laws  of  Nature." 

But  even  this  tends  to  make  men  doubt,  or  at  least 
forget  that  God  is  the  G-reat  Person.  All  attention 
and  admiration  is  engrossed  in  "  Nature."  Power  is 
only  noticed  in  the  vast  ''  forces  "  which  are  sup- 
posed to  do  such  great  wonders.  Even  what  is  sug- 
gested to  the  dullest  minds,  of  Divine  authority  and 
majesty,  as  when  "  thunders  utter  their  voices,"  is 
transferred  to  a  vague  fiction  called  "  Nature  "  or 
"Law."  Thus  is  defeated  that  purpose  of  Divine 
love  that  "  the  invisible  things  of  Him  "  should  be 
"understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His 
eternal  power  and  Godhead.''  They  are  made  the 
very  means  of  forgetting  and  even  denying  that 
there  is  that  Person — the  very  truth  of  "  His  Eternal 
Foiver  and  Godhead." 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  loss  of  vision  of 
God  as  a  Person  is  the  greatest  calamity  that  can 
befall  men.  Law  and  life  for  us  in  our  very  nature 
as  created  by  Him  in  love,  consist  first  in  a  personal 
love  for  Him,  which  makes  it  our  greatest  desire  to 
do  all  His  will.  Thus  His  law  becomes  our  will, 
that  will  is  gratified  and  we  are  happy.  A  part  of 
that  Divine  law  and  will  is  that  we  should  love  our 
fellow-men,  being  just  and  kind  to  each  of  them 
according  to  the  "  Golden  Eule  "  of  Our  Lord  and 
Saviour.  For  this  reason  nothing  worse  could  befall 
us  than  to  lose  sight  of  the  Glorious  Person  of  God, 
even  if  every  one  was  in  obedience  to  this  law  of 
love,  as  innocent  as  the  first  man  was  made. 


250  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   *' THE  REIGN   OP   LAW." 

But  it  is  3^et  worse  for  us  who  have  all  lost  that 
perfect  nature  made  "in  the  image  of  God."  And 
our  duty  of  love  to  God  is  even  increased  by  that 
"  great  mystery  of  Godliness  ":  that  He  has  so  loved 
this  lost  world  as  to  make  a  Eedemption  of  all  who 
will  repent  and  return  to  Him ;  that  God  the  Son 
has  come  to  this  world  in  person  for  this  work  and 
been  a  man  among  us.  Anything  which  tends  to 
keep  sinful  men  from  returning  by  this  great  salva- 
tion to  the  perfect  love  of  God  is  a  mistake  and  a 
misfortune  of  the  worst  kind. 

Jjaw,  then,  the  true  law  of  j^erfect  love  to  God  and 
man,  must  not  be  obscured  by  any  wrong  use  of  the 
term  or  degraded  by  other  association.  Especially 
those  who  begin  with  the  dangers  of  a  perverse  and 
selfish  self-will,  and  the  dulness  and  blindness  about 
divine  and  spiritual  things,  of  a  dreadful  fall  from 
natural  innocence,  cannot  afford  to  do  anything 
which  shall  aggravate  such  danger  to  their  own 
souls,  or,  O  even  greater  horror !  shall  put  their 
fellow-men  in  such  peril.  Something  more  than  the 
careless  folly  or  even  the  perverse  wickedness  of 
men  must  be  employed  in  this.  Probably  it  is  also 
among  the  cruel  inventions  of  "that  Wicked  One." 

This  false  use  of  the  term  law  does  mischief  also  in 
morals  as  well  as  in  religion.  It  accustoms  us  to  the 
thought  of  all  law  and  duty  as  separate  from  will 
and  choice  ;  as  of  something  only  of  cause  and  effect, 
not  of  right  or  wrong.  For  a  man  then  to  do  some 
right  thing  is  ''obeying  a  law"  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  commonl}'  said  that  we  ought  to  "  obe}'  the  laws 


LAW.  251 

of  JNature"  in  order  to  have  good  healtli,  that  is, 
avoid  certain  acts  merely  because  certain  ill  conse- 
quences follow  them.  Thus,  one  should  "  obey  the 
laws  of  Nature  "  in  not  eating  too  much,  since  that 
will  be  followed  by  bad  digestion  ;  or  in  not  being  a 
drunkard,  from  the  physical  consequences  of  that ;  or 
even  in  not  defrauding  another  man,  since  (to  say 
nothing  of  the  prisons  of  real  law)  it  has  the 
"  natural  penalty  "  of  the  ill-will  and  distrust  of 
other  men. 

How  different  is  this  from  the  true  idea  of  law  as 
the  will  of  God,  to  be  obeyed  from  love  to  Him  and 
in  love  to  my  neighbor  as  myself!  How  hostile  to 
Divine  law  is  all  the  tendency  of  this  notion  of 
*'  Natural  law  "  !  The  one  is  essentially  generous  ; 
the  other,  essentially  selfish.  Yet  such  is  the  secret 
and  unnoticed  advance  of  its  influence,  that  it  is  be- 
coming common  for  Christian  writers  and  preachers 
to  speak  of  the  resemblance,  and  even  identity  of  our 
duty  with  "  laws  of  Nature,"  of  the  punishment  of 
wrong-doing  being  merely  the  *'  natural  result,"  and 
even  of  the  awful  wrath  of  God  after  death  as  being 
"  according  to  a  law  of  Nature." 

In  w^ords  which  God  uses  to  speak  to  man  we 
shall  also  always  find  something  more  than  what  we 
call  "  questions  of  words,"  or  the  arbitrariness  of 
mere  human  speech.  In  none  such  is  this  more  true 
than  in  this  very  word  "  laio  "  in  all  its  uses  and 
abuses.  Thus,  in  our  English  language,  **  law  of" 
always  declares  the  authority  which  imposes  the  law 
and  is  to  be  obeyed.     The  "  law  of  God  "  is  what  He 


253  THE   REIGN    OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN    OF   LAW." 

commands  ;  the  "  law  of  man  "  is  what  is  determined 
by  human  allthorit3^  The  "  laws  of  Nature  "  are — 
what?  Is  this  ''Nature"  a  lawgiver?  And  who 
are  its  subjects  ?  Or  does  this  great  will  make  irre- 
sistible laws  for  its  great  complicated  and  all  but 
infinite  self?  But  though  certainly  there  is  no  will 
of  Nature,  either  to  impose  or  to  obey  law,  those 
who  use  the  false  words  are  forced  by  them  into  a 
false  thought.  Unconsciously  they  make  mankind, 
and  even  God,  the  subjects  of  such  law;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  they  imagine  **  Nature  "  something  vast, 
forceful — scarcely  less  than  infinite,  eternal  and 
almighty — at  least  having  a  lease  of  power  for  a 
thousand  ages,  which  cannot  be  cancelled  during 
that  term,  and  a  possession  and  dominion  (with 
perhaps  some  small  reserves  of  interposition  for  the 
real  owner)  which  cannot  be  trespassed  upon  by  a7iy 
one  while  that  title  lasts.  Thus  the  expression  and 
notion  of"  laws  of  Nature,''  even  in  its  most  attenu- 
ated form,  and  as  adjusted  to  arguments  in  behalf  of 
Christian  faith,  forces  us  to  think  of  God  as  limited 
by  something  outside  of  Himself.  And  while  this  is 
true  even  of  the  more  thoughtful  and  devout,  it  pro- 
motes actual  atheism  in  the  more  worldly  and  un- 
spiritual. 

This  "  question  of  words "  is  then  one  of  the 
greatest  questions  of  fact  and  of  Divine  truth.  So  is 
it  also  a  matter  of  the  most  urgent  practical  effect 
*'  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man's  estate." 
No  subject  of  our  thoughts  can  more  unite  these  two. 
"Love   is    the   fulfilling   of  the   law."     God  is   the 


LAW.  258 

supreme  object  of  that  love,  and  we  glorify  Him  only 
by  it.  Law  for  man  is  the  purpose  of  bis  existence, 
and  to  fulfil  it  includes  all  that  is  good  for  bim.  It 
does  not  say  that  to  fulfil  the  law  is  love,  that  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  weak  and  false  paraphrase  of  our  day, 
tbat  to  perform  every  precept  of  duty  to  our  fellow- 
men  (if  that  were  possible)  is  equivalent  to  love,  and 
is  the  real  meaning  of  that  as  a  figure  of  speech.  It 
does  say  that  all  true  law  is  His  Will  and  Word; 
that  its  first  and  great  commandment  is  to  love  Him 
supremely ;  that  another  part  of  His  Will  and  Law 
is  to  love  our  fellow-men  ;  that  especially,  having 
fallen  from  the  happiness  and  honor  of  such  love,  we 
sbould  long  and  labor  by  every  means  to  regain  this, 
and  to  replace  our  perverse  and  selfish  self-will  by  a 
love  to  Him  and  our  neighbor  whicb  makes  it  our 
greatest  desire  and  pleasure  to  obey  His  command- 
ments. 

This  is  the  true  doctrine  and  practice  of  virtue  and 
piety — really  "one  and  inseparable."  It  is  some- 
times falsely  said  that  "  duty  "  is  the  greatest  word 
and  thought,  and  is  what  has  made  the  English  race 
so  true  and  powerful.  Any  such  power  for  good 
which  "  duty"  has  had  has  been  in  that  Divine  truth, 
of  which  it  is  only  a  cold  shadow.  Shall  we  try  to 
be  wise  above  what  God  has  written  ?  The  true 
sense  of  duty  is  of  some  one  of  the  man}^  rights,  acts 
or  relations  which  God  has  commanded  within  His 
law  of  love.  All,  and  more,  that  the  other  word 
contains  as  a  principle  to  direct  or  to  animate  us  in 
doing  right,  is  contained  in  the  true  law,  which  is 
22 


254         THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

what  God  Himself  has  given  us  for  our  happiness 
and  life  in  Him.  To  personify  "  duty  "  and  make  it 
the  supreme  principle  of  conduct,  comes  from  that 
false  notion  of  "  eternal  principles "  of  right  and 
wrong  which  some  Christian  moralists  patronize, 
which  came  from  the  Greek  philosophers,  and  not 
only  cannot  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  but  is 
against  all  its  doctrine,  and  tends  really  to  atheism. 
He  alone  is  *'  eternal."  He  is  "  the  First  and  the 
Last."  "0/  Him  and  to  Him  and  through  Him  are 
all  things.''  Whatever  is  good  or  true,  is  such  be- 
cause it  is  His  will;  not  that  these  are  His  will 
because  they  are  good  or  true.  The  most  august  and 
perfect  actor  of  duty  that  ever  lived  on  the  earth, 
and  even  though  He  were  God  as  well  as  man,  has 
no  other  account  of  it  all  but  "  to  do  the  will  of  Him 
that  sent  me."  Thus,  and  only  thus,  is  all  true  law 
Divine  love. 

The  greatest  intellectual  (as  well  as  spiritual)  folly 
for  a  man  is  not  to  see  God  at  all  as  a  Person,  for 
then  he  cannot  love  Him.  The  next  is  to  questi07i 
that  greatest  truth  and  say,  "I  doubt  whether  there 
be  such  a  person ;  if  there  be,  perhaps  He  is  not  per- 
sonally *  knowable ';  I  will  give  all  my  thoughts  to 
the  great  '  Nature  '  which  I  do  know."  Can  such  a 
man  love  God  ?  But  short  of  this,  a  man  may  so 
forget  God  by  transferring  to  something  which  he 
calls  "Nature  "  all  that  reminds  us  of  His  power  and 
law,  that  it  is  almost  as  if  there  were  '•  no  God."  If 
he  does  not  at  all  repent  and  believe  on  Our  Lord,  you 
may  sa}-  that  this  is  any  way  the  perverseness  of 


LAW.  255 

fallen  man.  How  woful  it  is  then  that  this  evil  will 
of  his  has  been  reinforced  by  that  feilse  notion  of 
"law"  and  "Nature  "  to  obscure  the  thought  of  God 
and  his  love  !  how  terrible  if  we  help  to  maintain 
such  fatal  delusions  among  our  fellowmen  !  But 
even  if  such  a  man  be  an  honest  Christian,  how 
much  love  of  G-od  and  of  his  fellowmen  is  lost  to  him 
by  the  same  false  thought ! 

After  this  enquiry  was  completed  it  occurred  to 
the  author  that  some  persons  might  still  be  confused 
by  the  notion  that  the  Eeign  of  God  must  be  a 
'*  reign  of  law,"  because  it  is  generally  admitted 
among  civilized  men  that  the  highest  idea  of  civil 
society  is  that  of  "government  by  laiv^^  as  opposed 
to  ^^ personal  government."  By  reflecting  upon  the 
real  principle  of  this  we  shall  see  what  truth  it  sug- 
gests in  the  present  enquiry. 

Whence  then  comes  the  yearning  for  "  paternal 
government"  sometimes  intelligently  felt,  among  us 
who  felicitate  ourselves  that  ours  is  not  such  ?  It  is 
very  easy  to  dismiss  this  with  an  impatient  rebuke 
as  mere  servile  vanity,  love  of  the  "  trappings  "  of 
power  which  are  so  much  seen  in  monarchies,  and 
the  hope  in  that  case  to  be  of  the  small  favored  class 
at  the  expense  of  degradation  for  most  of  our 
countrymen.  No  doubt  such  wishes  are  sometimes 
indulged  in  among  a  free  people.  In  any  case  we 
are  not  grateful  and  thoughtful  enough  about  the 
blessings  of  equal  laws  and  the  self-government  of 
our  nation. 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we   may  see  how  human 


256         THE   REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

law  will  of  course  be  imperfect  in  its  application. 
That  no  forethjOught  or  experience  of  man  can  adjust 
general  laws  so  that  they  will  not  work  injustice  in 
some  cases  that  arise  ;  that  the  distribution  of  power 
among  many  men  will  not  seldom  put  it  in  the 
hands  of  ignorant,  unjust  or  corrupt  persons,  yet 
greatly  diminish  the  sense  of  shame  or  responsibility 
which  is  some  check  to  this  mischief.  Those  who 
observe  these  evils  and  think  only  of  some  remedy  for 
them,  may  look  with  desire  to  the  theory  of  personal 
government  by  one  man,  so  sure  of  his  authority  as 
to  be  firm,  and  so  conspicuous  to  public  judgment 
that  he  dare  not  be  corrupt,  yet  not  disabled  by 
technical  law  from  doing  substantial  justice  in  each 
actual  case. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  all  power  really  rests  with 
one  who  is  noways  amenable  to  the  many,  the  con- 
sequences of  his  being  a  bad  man  are  fearfully  aggra- 
vated. Then  also  were  he  the  wisest  and  most  just 
in  a  great  nation,  he  is  altogether  dependent  for  his 
knowledge  of  facts  and  for  his  actual  execution  ot 
justice  upon  many  thousands  of  other  men,  whom  he 
cannot  possibly  know  so  as  to  choose  them  wisely  to 
these  ends.  No  doubt  then  we  shall  agree  in  general 
that  it  is  a  mistake  to  prefer  a  "  personal  govern- 
ment "  among  men  to  one  "  of  law." 

But  when  we  "  lift  our  eyes  to  Him  Who  dwelleth 
in  the  Heavens,"  all  the  conditions  of  this  question 
are  changed.  He  is  the  "  one  law-giver,"  source  and 
eternal  seat  of  «/?  just  authority.  In  the  former  case 
the  "personal  governor"  is  one  of  His  impe-rfectand 


LAW.  257 

perverse  subjects  exercising  a  little  delegated  power 
over  others  of  them  for  Him  ;  one  of  His  creatures 
who  only  began  and  continues  to  exist  as  He  con- 
tinues to  wish  this,  directed  to  maintain  for  himself 
and  some  other  men  the  social  order  of  peace  and 
justice  which  His  love  provides  for  all  alike.  True 
laws  enforce  men's  duties  to  one  another  which 
belong  with  their  relations.  He  is  the  maker  of  all 
the  relations  and  all  the  laws.  This  government 
only  continues  rightly  as  His  personal  will  to  that 
effect  continues.  He  is  all  truth,  all  power,  all  love. 
Therefore  His  personal  government  has  no  possible 
defect  of  justice,  of  ignorance  of  facts,  of  selfish  self- 
will,  of  being  the  unconscious  instrument  of  some 
one  else's  self-will.  On  the  contrary,  it  includes  a 
perfect,  personal  knowledge,  and  a  just  and  impartial 
personal  love  of  each  one  of  His  subjects. 

Our  free  government  is  not  "  personal,"  because 
those  who  make  and  execute  our  laws  are  fellow- 
subjects  of  those  laws  with  us.  His  government 
must  be  personal  in  that  He  is  the  sole  necessary 
Supreme  Person,  Whose  will  is  all  law  to  all  others, 
while  He  is  subject  to  nothing.  It  is  a  government 
by  law /or  us,  in  the  sense  that  we  have  His  blown 
will  given  us  as  a  law.  And  yet  for  us  it  is  personal, 
in  that  "  God  dealeth  with  us  as  with  sons  ";  not  as 
though  He  were  any  way  constrained  by  general 
laws  made  for  classes  of  His  subjects,  which,  as  we 
sometimes  say,  must  in  some  cases  work  hardship  to 
individuals,  but  as  dealing  with  such  individual  per- 
sons with  most  minute  and  exact  notice  of  all  par- 


258        -^rHE  REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW.' 


ticuliirs.  As  vcg-ui'ds  Himself,  it  is  in  fact  the  one 
only  '•  paternal  "  government,  represented  to  us  by 
nothing  else  among  men  (and  by  that  of  necessity 
most  imperfectly),  than  by  the  father  of  a  family  ;  a 
government  in  which  the  commanding  will  and  per- 
sonal love  are  one,  and  obedience  and  love  in  like 
unity  required  of  the  subjects.  Among  its  first  laws 
is  this:  "  When  ye  pray,  say,  Our  Father  Who  art 
in  Heaven/' 


RESULTS  COLLECTED.  259 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

RESULTS   COLLECTED. 

LET  US  now  collect  the  results  of  this  whole 
investigation  in  one  compact  statement. 

It  has  appeared  that  never  before  among  English 
speaking  people  were  religious  doubts  more  common 
or  so  much  diffused  among  all  classes,  especially 
younger  persons ;  that  these  doubts  are  raised  upon 
arguments  from  the  "  laws  of  Nature,"  and  the 
generally  received  notion  of  all  men  of  science, 
whether  Christian  or  un-Christian,  of  a  '*  reign  of 
law ";  and  that  the  modern  writers  in  behalf  of 
faith  all  concede  this  notion,  and  argue  onl}^  to  show 
that  in  accordance  with  it  we  may  yet  believe  in  the 
Christian  miracles,  in  prayer,  and  in  God's  AVord  ; 
but  that,  however  ingenious  these  arguments  are, 
and  even  conclusive  to  those  who  do  not  need  con- 
vincing, they  do  not  remove  the  unbelief,  or  even 
clieck  its  advance. 

I  have  undertaken  to  show  that  these  arguments 
are  unsuccessful  simply  because  the  supposed  truth 
of  a  '*  reign  of  law  "  with  which  our  religion  must 
be  reconciled,  is  no  truth  at  all,  but  a  gratuitous  and 
irreligious  fiction.  That  assumption  has  been 
demonstrated  to  be,  not  only  not  proved,  but  posi- 
tively and  mischievously  untrue,  and  that  to  argue 
from  it  involves  a  surrender  of  the  true  grounds  of 


260  THE   REIGN  OP   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

faith.  I  therefore  entreat  all  Christians  who  read 
this,  to  reject  that  notion  and  all  its  atheistic  corol- 
laries together,  and  to  show  to  others  that  they  need 
not  be  disturbed  in  Christian  faith  by  any  arguments 
about  "  laws  of  Nature." 

Here,  indeed,  we  might  rest  until  some  proof  of 
the  assumption  was  yet  presented  ;  whatsoever  has 
been  heretofore  taken  for  such  proof  having  been 
examined,  and  having  failed  to  stand  the  tests  of 
truth.  Indeed,  such  proof  has  scarcely  ever  been 
attempted.  It  has  been  merely  taken  for  granted 
that  there  were  such  "laws  of  Nature"  and  their 
"reign."  If  this  is  still  maintained  by  any  one  upon 
the  impression  of  its  being  a  self-evident  truth,  one 
of  those  statements  upon  which  all  men  agree  upon 
the  first  apprehension  of  them  (as  that  the  whole  of 
anything  is  greater  than  any  one  of  its  parts),  I  may 
disprove  that  at  once  by  the  fact  that  one  mind  at 
least  (my  own),  cannot  after  much  reflection  even 
conceive  of  its  being  true.* 

Thus,  being  neither  self-evident  nor  proved,  it 
ought  to  be  dismissed  from  all  thought  by  that  just 
principle  which  Sir  William  Hamilton  calls  "  the  law 
of  parcimony,  which  forbids  the  multiplication  with- 
out necessity  of  entities,  powers,  principles  or 
causes."  And  so  Christians,  who  know  already  the 
All-sufficient  Power  and  Cause  of  all  existence  and 


*  Besides,  if  such  eelf-evident  truth,  It  is  a  great  religious  truth,  and 
must  have  been  Icnowu  to  mankind  from  the  first  ages,  and  certainly 
"In  the  fullness  of  time"  appeared  in  all  the  Creeds  and  Liturgies  of 
the  Church,  whereas  (and  this  is  a  powerful  argument  against  its  being 
anyway  credible  by  Christians)  it  is  in  none  of  these  expressed  or 
implied. 


RESULTS  COLLECTED.  261 

life  in  the  Infinite  Will,  should  not  imagine,  "  with- 
out necessity,"  such  "powers,"  &c.,  in  "forces  of 
Nature  "  and  the  like. 

But  the  notion  is  so  widely  prevalent  and  so 
deeply  rooted  in  all  the  language  of  our  day,  and  is  so 
injurious  to  men's  faith  in  the  Most  Blessed  God  and 
to  their  love  of  Him,  that  I  have  advanced  to  the 
positive  investigation  of  its  merits  by  every  test. 
In  reviewing  the  results  of  this  for  our  final  judg- 
ment, let  us  all  remember  that  in  comparison  with 
truth  our  former  opinions  or  pride  of  opinion,  or  the 
authority  of  famous  names,  the  honor  of  being  called 
intelligent  or  the  shame  of  being  despised  as  narrow- 
minded  and  ignorant — all  these  are  nothing, 

There  is  one  further  proof  which  appears  now  for 
the  first  time,  and  only  because  the  other  proofs  are 
collected.  One  of  the  foregoing  arguments,  indeed, 
that  from  the  Word  of  God,  far  outweighs  all  the 
others,  and  is  really  decisive.  But  the  Good  One 
allows  our  weak  intelligence  the  help  of  many  others, 
and  in  their  consilience y^  furnishes  another  still  to 
bind  them  into  an  irresistible  demonstration.  For 
when  all  the  parts  of  an  investigation  point  to  one 
conclusion,  the  force  of  the  united  proof  is  not 
merely  the  amount  of  these  several  parts,  but  many 
times  greater  ;  so  that  reasonable  doubt  is  excluded. 

It  was  proved,  1,  that  the  question  whether  there 
is  a  "reign  of  law,"  or  whether  we  ought  to  believe 
that  the  immediate   Will   of  God   is  the    only  real 

*0r  ''leaping  together."  It  is  the  name  which  Prof.  Whewell  gives 
to  the  increased  force  of  such  a  concurrence  of  proofs. 


262  THE   REIGN   OF  GOD  SOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

Force,   is    rather,    if  not  exclusively,  a  question  of 
Religion. 

2.  That  as  such  it  is  not  to  be  determined  by  what 
is  called  Natural  Theology,  but  (3)  by  the  Word  of 
God. 

4.  That  there  is  much  greater  certainty  of  truth 
in  a  "  Word  of  God  "  than  in  any  knowledge  which 
men  can  acquire  otherwise,  so  that  the  meaning  of 
the  former  ought  not  to  be  controlled  by  the  latter. 

5.  That  the  notion  of  a  ''  reign  of  law  "  is  not 
found  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  which  would  not  be,  if  that 
notion  were  true. 

6.  That  the  opposite,  that  is  the  truth  of  the  im- 
mediate Will  and  Power  of  God  in  all  things,  is 
taught  there  in  a  thousand  places. 

This  is  really  conclusive.  But  continuing  our  in- 
vestigation by  a  history  of  the  opinions  of  men  con- 
cerning this,  we  find — 7,  That  the  belief  in  God's 
immediate  power  is  taken  for  granted  by  early 
Christian  writers — that  of  (8)  "  Nature  "  and  its 
"  laws  "  appeared  first  among  pagan  philosophers, 
and  that  long  before  Our  Lord  established  His 
Church. 

9.  That  the  latter  was  akin  to  and  of  like  sugges- 
tion with  the  belief  in  manj^  gods,  and  yet  was  — 

10.  In  intellectual  tendency  atheistic,  as  causing 
acute  speculators  to  conclude  that  really  "  there  is  no 
God." 

11.  That  some  time  after  the  Apostles  it  began  to 
come  among  Christian  writers,  from  the  reading  of 
Plato  and  Aristotle. 


RESULTS  COLLECTED. 


12.  That  such  Christian  writers  erred  in  imagin- 
ing that  they  could  better  understand  or  interpret 
God's  Word  by  the  help  of  those  philosophers, 
whereas  the  only  effect  of  this  would  be  to  obscure 
its  meaning. 

13.  That  the  Holy  Ghost  by  St.  Paul  had  ex- 
pressly forbidden  this  to  the  Church,  and  foretold 
these  evil  consequences  ;  and  that  St.  Paul  could  not 
but  have  had  in  his  mind  the  philosophy  of  Plato  as 
well  as  of  the  other  Greeks,  and  did  not,  in  fact, 
except  it  from  his  condemnation. 

14.  That  this  and  the  notion  of  "  laws  of 
Nature  "  came  again  into  Christendom  in  the  Dark 
Ages,  from  the  writings  of  Mohammedan  atheists. 

15.  That  it  found  its  way  into  modern  science 
from  the  first. 

16.  That  nevertheless  it  was  not  then  entertained 
in  the  prevailing  sense  of  our  day,  by  the  greatest 
men  of  science,  who  were  both  devout  believers  and 
men  of  profound  thought. 

17.  That  it  grew  strong  and  developed  to  what  it 
is  now,  as  "  the  reign  of  law,"  while  lurking  in  con- 
venient phrases,  which  were  often  expressly  declared 
by  those  who  used  them,  not  to  mean  what  is  now 
generally  allowed  to  be  their  meaning. 

18.  That  the  opposite  and  true  idea,  of  God's  will 
as  the  only  real  force,  was  maintained  even  by  some 
of  the  Arabian  philosophers,  but  later  and  better  by 
devout  Christian  thinkers,  as  Des  Cartes  and  Male- 
branche. 

19.  That  it  has  had  witnesses  in  the  Church  of 
every  age  since. 


264         THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

20.  That  the  argument  and  authority  of  Hooker 
for  a  "  reign  of  law,"  and  his  supposed  chief  proof  of 
it  from  Holy  Scripture,  is  a  mistake  of  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  cited. 

21.  That  the  religious  opposition  to  the  Coper- 
niean  astronomy,  and  the  persecution  of  Galileo  300 
years  ago,  are  no  proof  that  we  ought  to  adjust  our 
religion  to  the  notion  of  "laws  of  Nature"  or  any 
results  of  that  notion. 

22.  That  this  false  notion  is  not  necessary  to 
scientific  investigation,  and  if  it  were,  it  would  be 
better  to  dispense  with  that  investigation. 

23.  That  it  is  proved  false  by  not  according  with 
one  of  the  greatest  of  facts — the  freedom  of  man's 
will. 

24.  Also  by  its  inconsistency  with  the  greatest  of 
all  facts — the  absolute  Will  and  Love  of  Grod. 

25.  That  if  it  be  received  by  us  as  certain  truth, 
its  entire  discrepancy  with  the  general  language  and 
spirit  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  casts  doubt  upon  their 
truth,  and  weakens  their  power  over  our  souls. 

26.  That  its  necessary  and  actual  tendency  is  to 
change  the  heretofore  received  meaning  of  Holy 
Writ. 

27.  That  it  has  already  exacted  such  a  change  of 
meaning  as  to  the  Creation,  and  thus  rashly  dis- 
turbed the  faith  of  many. 

28.  That  it  is  advancing  to  require  the  assent  of 
all  to  like  changes  of  our  understanding  of  Holy 
Scripture,  as  to  the  primitive  innocence  and  spiritual 
perfection  of  the  first  man  and  his  fall  from  that 
state,  as  also  of  other  matters  of  Christian  doctrine. 


RESULTS  COLLECTED.,  265 

29.  That  it  is  against  the  moral  and  spiritual  good 
of  mankind,  promoting  pride,  self-sufficiency,  selfish- 
ness and  spiritual  dulness. 

30.  That  it  is  against  prayer  and  praise,  faith  and 
love. 

31.  That  it  tends  to  deny  Grod^s  giving  of  spiritual 
good  to  men. 

32.  That  it  prevents  their  seeing  His  loving  will 
and  power  in  all  events  of  their  life. 

33.  That  the  term  "  law "  of  necessary  effect 
implies  a  free  will  governing  and  giving  law,  and 
other  free  wills  subject  to  law  and  bound  to  obey  it; 
so  that  the  use  of  it  for  things  necessary  and 
mechanical,  as  of  "laws  of  Nature"  and  their 
"reign,"  is  essentially  against  the  knowledge  of 
right  and  wrong,  and  against  true  religion. 

34.  That  it  thus  tends  to  unbelief  and  disobedience 
of  the  real  law  of  God. 

35.  That  it  already,  in  fact,  shows  results  of  this 
dreadful  tendency. 

36.  That  the  Will,  which  our  best  reason  sucfo-ests  to 
us  as  the  real  and  only  Force,  is  what  God's  Word  fully 
discloses  as  Himself  immediately  working  all  things 
"by  the  wish  of  His  own  Will,"  which  fact  we  are 
never  to  separate  from  the  other  supreme  fact,  that 
"  God  is  love,"  the  measure  of  apprehension  of 
which  is  the  measure  of  our  glory  and  felicity  ; 
though  we  can  never  include  it  in  our  thoughts,  since 
it  will  always  immeasurably  overflow  our  power  of 
thinking. 

37.  That  this  truth  of  "  the  Eeign  of  God  "  has  no 
23 


266  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 


difficulties   for   faith    in    His    Word,    its    miracles, 
prophecies  and  promises. 

38.  That  it  promotes  love,  prayer  and  praise  to 
God,  as  well  as  the  love  of  our  neighbor  man  and  all 
virtue;  and  thus  it  alone  accords  with  "  the  light  of 
the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ." 

We  may  feel  confident  that  in  this  examination  no 
important  matter  bearing  upon  the  truth  in  question 
has  been  overlooked  or  unfairly  stated.  Consider 
again  the  irresistible  "consilience"  of  all  these 
proofs  bearing  upon  one  glorious  and  blessed  result. 
There  is  nothing  left  for  us  but  to  dismiss  forever 
the  false  notion  of  a  "  reign  of  law,"  and  to 
"  embrace  and  ever  hold  fast  "  the  truth  which  it 
denies.  Thus  even  now  we  may  begin  to  join  in  the 
everlasting  chorus:  "Hallelujah!  for  the  Lord 
GOD  Omnipotent  EEIGNETH!" 


SUGGESTIONS  AND   REMONSTRANCES.  267 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

SUGGESTIONS    AND    REMONSTRANCES. 

THE  writer  wishes  to  say  a,  few  words  more,  as 
one  man  to  another,  to  each  of  his  readers  of 
three  classes.  And  first  to  phiin  people,  who  are  in 
no  sense  scientific,  and  have  only  been  disturbed  in 
their  quiet  faith  as  Christians  by  what  they  read  and 
hear  all  around  them,  that  such  faith  is  against  "  the 
laws  of  Nature."  To  me,  looking  again  over  all  this 
field  of  discussion,  it  seems  a  very  small  matter 
whether  1  have  merely  the  best  of  the  argument 
with  those  whom  I  oppose.  But  it  seems  a  very 
great  matter  to  have  said  something,  or  to  say  it 
now,  by  which  you  or  I  may  get  to  have,  or  keep,  a 
true,  stead}^  faith  in  God.  We  cannot  be  happy 
without  that.  We  cannot  have  the  glory  and  peace 
of  children  of  Him,  without  such  a  faith  that  His 
Word  will  illuminate  all  this  world  and  life  for  us, 
and  shine  into  the  Eternity  beyond.  Without  this 
faith  we  cannot  be  good  Christians,  having  real  life 
in  Our  Glorious  Lord,  the  Son  of  God  ;  the  Holy 
Spirit  also  making  us  holy.  All  the  books,  news- 
papers, science,  intellect,  civilization  or  "  culture  " 
which  we  coukl  have,  or  aspire  to,  could  not  begin  to 
make  up  for  the  loss  of  that.  All  of  them  that  are 
any  way  against  that  faith  stand  between  us  and  the 

TRUTH. 

There  is  now  in  what  every  one  reads   much  that 


268  THE  REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF   LAW." 

ca&ts  doubt  and  scorn  upon  that  faith  ;  and  there  are 
SO  many  things  said  by  those  who  pass  for  the  more 
knowing,  as  though  no  well-informed  person  could 
really  believe  the  Holy  Bible  in  what  has  always 
before  seemed  its  plain  sense,  that  it  would  not  be 
strange  if  you  were  unsettled  by  this.  Then  the 
books  and  papers  and  sermons  in  reply  have  not 
helped  you  much  or  any.  There  have  been  in  them, 
instead  of  the  courage  and  common  sense  of  an  un- 
moved belief,  many  signs  of  timidity,  or  such  cold, 
far-fetched,  w7ireligious  arguments,  calling  you  down 
from  the  high  grounds  of  faith.  Sometimes,  if  there 
was  any  real  meaning,  it  was  concealed  in  new  and 
outlandish  words — 

"  of  learned  length  and  thundering  sound." 

So  you  have  feared  that  henceforth  none  were  to  see 
the  true  God  and  eternal  life  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
except  very  ignorant  persons,  and  the  very  few 
others  who  could  be  devout  and  "  scientific."  Per- 
haps you  have  trembled  about  this,  not  for  your- 
selves, but  for  your  children  and  all  those  who  are  to 
come  after  us  all. 

I  do  hope  I  have  now  done  something  to  reassure 
you ;  to  break  for  our  younger  people,  who  are 
eager  to  read  and  believe  everything  that  is  against 
old  ideas,  the  fascination  of  this  arrogant  and  impu- 
dent belief  It  has  been  plainly  shown  that  it  is  a 
delusion  to  believe  in  a  "  reign  of  law,"  and  with  this 
notion  to  disturb  our  faith  in  God  and  His  Word. 
Let  us  then  believe  every  word  in   the  Holy  Bible 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  REMONSTRANCES.  269 

about  the  Creation,  the  Flood,  the  great  miracles 
done  among  the  Israelites  and  all  their*  wonderful 
history  ;  for  it  is  literal  truth.  Believe  the  prophe- 
cies and  commands  of  the  Lord  God — all.  Especially 
believe  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  and  Epistles  of  the 
Apostles,  the  glorious  and  awful  Eevelation.  "  Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Let  nothing  which  is 
said  about  "  laws  of  Nature  "  against  this  true  reli- 
gion, have  weight  with  you,  for  there  are  no  such 
laws. 

None  the  less  for  these  imaginary  "  laws  of 
Nature,"  pray  to  God,  and  none  the  less  hopefully 
and  earnestly.  He  does  listen  to  you  with  favor. 
He  has  power  absolutely  unlimited  to  do  what  you 
ask,  and  He  is  Infinite  Love,  which  will  decide  upon 
your  desire  only  by  what  is  best  for  you.  Don't  be  at 
all  ashamed  of  this  because,  as  "Appleton's  "  or  '•  the 
Atlantic  "  or  ycur  city  newspaper  may  inform  you, 
Dr.  Holmes,  with  his  Boston  sarcasm,  or  even  Dr. 
Tyndall,  with  his  British  science,  thinks  your  faith 
silly.  It  is  these  men  who  are  the  blind  dupes  of 
their  own  vanity  of  intellect. 

And  thank  the  Great  God  for  everything  good 
when  you  enjoy  it.  We  ought  not  to  do  this  only 
when  it  is  something  that  v/e  have  prayed  for  before. 
Unsought  and  unthought  of  blessings  are  to  be  re- 
membered with  this  grateful  love,  and  with  a  tender 
self-reproach  which  even  increases  our  sense  of  obli- 
gation. Yes,  let  us  believe  and  think  of  each  such 
thing  as  coming  direct  to  us  from  our  Good  God  ; 
for   this   is   true.     It   is   true   of  all  things :  of  the 


270  TDE  REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW. 

morning  sun  shining  in  the  fresh  air  ;  of  the  welcome 
rains  on  fields  perishing  with  thirst :  of  our  food, 
our  thoughts,  our  escapes  from  danger ;  of  every- 
thing that  makes  up  our  life. 

If  any  one  has  followed  this  argument  w^th  me  or 
given  it  any  attention,  with  whom  its  most  serious 
part,  that  is,  its  reasoning  from  the  Christian  faith 
and  the  Holj^  Bible,  has  no  force,  because  he  does 
not  admit  them  to  be  true — I  have  something  special 
to  say  to  him.  I  have  not  until  now  directly 
addressed  you,  but  seldom  have  you  been  out  of  my 
thoughts,  or,  pardon  me  for  what  may  seem  to  you 
impertinent  or  arrogant,  out  of  my  loving  anxiety. 
For  wo  are  living  together  in  this  strange  world, 
with  very  sublime  possibilities  at  least,  before  and 
after  us  all. 

And  then  I  have  the  sympathy  with  you  of  all 
seekers  after  truth.  In  this  I  doubt  not  you  may  bo 
sincere  in  certain  directions  of  search.  But  this  very 
syntpathy  requires  me  to  be  very  plain  with  you,  and 
to  say  that  I  do  not  believe  you  are  such  honest 
seekers  in  the  highest  sense  and  as  regards  the  most 
important  subjects  of  thought.  Our  so  much 
opposed  conclusions  require  this  judgment  of  one 
another.  For  we  will  agree  that  absolute  truth  has 
such  afiinity  for  man  seeking  it  that  he  will  never 
reject  anything  which  is  fully  presented  to  his  mind 
and  is  true,  except  as  some  perversity  of  will  misleads 
him  from  approval  of  it.  This  is  w^hat  you  think  of 
me,  and  what  both  of  us  think  of  some  obstinate 
bigot.  And  yet  in  a  fair  sense  we  can  call  such  a  one 
honest  and  sincere. 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  REMONSTRANCES.  271 


One  Avhom  we  ull  agree  to  have  been  at  least  a 
man  who  thought  profoundly  upon  human  life,  has 
said  that  "  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light 
because  their  deeds  are  evil."  May  not  you  be 
affected  by  this  aversion  from  truth  in  matters  that 
involve,  not  physics  or  metaphysics,  but  our  conduct 
towards  our  fellow-men  and  our  at  least  possible  duty 
to  a  "Supreme  Being"?  Thus  I  do  account  for 
your  failure  to  seek  and  achieve  the  truth  of  religion. 

And  so  while  I  have  been  through  all  these  pages 
reasoning  for  a  certain  conclusion  with  those  who, 
like  me,  take  "  the  Word  of  God  "  as  we  believe  it 
given  to  us  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  certain 
truth,  I  would  remind  you  that  some  parts  of  this 
argument  are  just  as  forcible  for  j^ou  who  decline  that 
authority.  Thus  I  think  I  have  made  it  clear  to  all 
that  the  idea  of  a  "  reign  of  la-w  "  is  a  mere  assump- 
tion. I,  therefore,  challenge  you  to  dismiss  it,  as 
you  love  truth  and  as  you  would  decline  any  unproved 
postulate.  Or  if  there  be  such  proof  yet  possible, 
show  it  to  me ;  for  I  also  love  truth  and  will  gladly 
abandon  my  position  if  fairl}^  disproved. 

But  beyond  this  I  invite  you  for  the  love  of  truth 
to  examine  anew  whether  the  Christian  faith  is  not 
truth.  And  I  offer  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  this 
task,  the  frightful  unmeaningness  of  ourselves  and  of 
all  else  that  exists,  unless  there  is  some  true  religion. 
"Why  should  we  exercise  our  reason  upon  anything 
when  we  know  no  raison  d'etre  for  ourselves?  You 
^sk  a  "reason  why"  for  everything  around  us 
But  really  can  you  be  content  to  give  no  thought  to 


273         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

the  question  how  and  why  you  and  your  fellow-men 
exist  to  think  at  all  ?  Can  you  be  so  indifferent  to 
it  that  when  most  men  around  you  believe  that  they 
have  found  a  great  answer  to  this  as  the  greatest  of 
questions,  and  have  found  in  that  answer  the  greatest 
sentiments  and  motives  of  action  now,  you  will  pay 
no  attention  to  any  one  who  offers  to  show  you  this  ; 
that  you  will  smile  at  such  thoughts  as  not  worth 
thinking,  and  so  foolish  that  they  must  be  false 
without  your  investigation  ?  Indeed,  if  this  be  a 
foolish  use  of  thought,  how  silly  it  must  be  to  study 
the  habits  of  birds  or  anything  in  "  Nature,"  except 
for  the  low  uses  of  mere  money-making?  Why 
then  should  a  man  of  any  nobleness  of  spirit  care  to 
live  at  all  ? 

But  look  at  the  Christian  idea  :  not  that  feeble  and 
timid  shadow  of  it,  which  alone  your  fellow-natural- 
ists who  are  Christians  will  probably  ever  venture  to 
show  you,  but  the  real  thing  with  its  own  force,  if  it 
has  any;  its  answer  to  the  question,  <'  Why  do  I  and 
all  else  exist  ?  "  There  is  a  most  good  and  glorious 
Person,  invisible  to  us,  but  vastly  greater  than  the 
greatest  man  or  all  of  us  men  together.  We  and  all 
else  but  He  are,  and  are  what  we  are,  simply 
because  He  wishes  it.  He  is  love,  and  therefore 
wishes  everything  that  He  has  made  to  be  good  and 
beautiful ;  and  that  everj^thing  to  which  He  has 
given  scnsibilit}'  should  have  unbroken  happiness. 
Some  of  these  creatures  are  spiritual,  that  is  persons, 
with  a  likeness  to  Himself  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  will 
and  to   love.      Their  greatness   and    felicity  lie    in 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  REMONSTRANCES.  273 

having  their  will  and  love  accord  with  His.  If  it 
does  not  so  accord,  then  ensue  to  them  only  dishonor 
and  unhappiness. 

Among  the  personal  creatures  of  the  Lord  God, 
mankind  fell  into  this  evil  will,  and  their  deformity 
and  unhappiness  have  even  invaded  the  beautiful  order 
of  the  innocent  material  world  in  which  they  live. 
Yet  unlike  that  pitiless  "  Nature  "  which  you  put 
in  the  supreme  place  of  a  "  Father  Who  is  in 
Heaven,"  and  which  has  nothing  but  unrelenting 
punishment  for  sinners,  He  whose  loving  will  is  the 
life  of  all,  meets  this  great  ruin  with  a  great  salva- 
tion. With  amazing  and  most  touching  details  of 
mercy  and  grace,  He  provides  that  all  mankind  may 
regain  their  life  of  perfect  love  of  Him  and  of  one 
another,  and  have  for  their  immortal  residence  a 
"  new  Heavens  and  new  Earth,"  without  the  wounds 
and  scars  of  this  unhappy  world.  And  yet  the  evil 
will  of  some  can  (because  by  the  Omnipotent  Will 
theirs  has  been  made  a  real  will  of  choice),  and  will 
persist  in  being  evil  and  in  refusing  to  be  made  good 
and  happy,  whether  this  perverseness  take  the  form 
of  mere  neglect,  or  add  to  it  a  denial  of  the  truth  that 
Grod  reigns  over  all  and  has  sent  His  Son  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  But,  however  this  may  affect 
such  unhappy  creatures  in  the  end,  the  Blessed  and 
Only  Potentate  will  do  His  good  pleasure  perfectly 
and  forever  more. 

Now,  first,  is  it  not  better  to  know  the  actual  pur- 
pose of  our  being  than  to  be  ignorant  and  indifferent 
about  it  ?    Is  not  this  so  even  if  we  are  eager  to  pur- 


274         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF   LAW." 

sue  some  other  kind  of  knowledge  ?  Is  it  not  worth 
while  to  take  eveiy  means  of  learning  whether  this 
Christian  faith  is  not  the  true  account  of  it?  Of 
course  I  do  not  mean  by  this  such  a  searching  for  argu- 
ments against  it,  as  a  man  might  make  under  pretence 
of  enquiry  when  he  had  resolved  beforehand  that 
nothing  could  convince  him.  That  might  be  a  terrible 
crime  against  bis  own  destiny  and  a  silly  outrage 
upon  a  very  great  Person.  Would  it  not  be  an  un- 
utterable shame  to  find  out  when  too  late,  that  after 
all  it  was  true,  and  had  been  not  only  neglected,  but 
scorned  as  a  superstitious  fiction  ? 

Only  compare  this  Christian  theory  of  human  life 
with  your  doctrine  of  "  the  whole  duty  of  man,"  as 
I  shall  now  declare  it ;  for  to  reject  the  one  is  really 
to  accept  the  other,  viz.:  That  we  live  in  the  midst^ 
and  as  parts,  of  a  vast  machine  which  exists  somehow, 
whether  it  ever  really  began  or  not ;  that  it  is  per- 
fect in  all  its  parts  and  movements,  and  that  we  can 
be  and  ought  to  be  always  finding  out  some  of  its 
invariable  "laws";  that  to  exist  and  do  this  for 
three-score  and  ten  years,  perhaps  less,  possibly  a 
little  more,  is  all  that  the  most  favored  of  men  can 
understand  as  their  reason  for  existing. 

Now,  does  that  seem  to  you  worthy  of  the 

— "  beiug  of  large  discourse— looking  before  and  after  "? 

Even  this  discovery  of  new  "  laws  of  Nature  "  can- 
not employ  one  man  in  a  hundred.  And  what  will 
even  these  exist  for,  when  all  those  "  laws  "  are  dis- 
covered ?     Will  that  consummation  of  knowledge  be 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  REMONSTRANCES.  275 

a  signal  for  the  extinction  of  mankind?  Or  if  that 
be  immeasurably  distant  in  the  future,  so  in  propor- 
tion must  our  present  knowledge  be  small,  feeble  and 
uncertain  ;  unworthy  to  be  applied  to  these  great 
questions  of  religion.  No;  as  compared  with  his 
idea  who  imagines  himself  (if  you  will)  made  for  such 
a  Divine  passion  of  devotion  to  His  Maker  as  I  have 
described,  yours  is  a  very  low  and  dull  hypothesis. 
It  is  alike  for  the  highest  as  well  as  the  lowest  of 
our  race,  in  substance 

— "  to  draw  nutritiou,  propagate,  and  rot." 

If  it  is  the  truth,  it  is  better  than  any  contradiction 
of  it.  But  if  not  true,  and  you  refuse  to  find  the 
absolute  Divine  truth  in  religion,  what  then? 

But  I  should  trifle  with  you  and  mislead  j^ou  if  I 
only  asked  you  thus  to  find  truth  by  your  own 
thoughts.  There  is  something  much  more  certain 
and  complete.  God  has  spoken  it  to  us  directh^  in 
words.  You  may  say  that  I  require  you  to  submit 
to  "  authority."  Yes,  I  invite  you,  as  I  rejoice  in 
enjoying  it  myself,  to  find  truth  in  the  "  authority  " 
of  ''Our  Father  Who  is  in  Heaven."  Begin  with 
reading  the  four  Hol}^  Gospels,  where  you  will  find 
the  words  as  far  removed  from  human  ambition  or 
dictation  as  they  ever  are,  and  with  a  simplicity 
which  even  Mr.  Darwin  cannot  surpass.  I  believe 
that  if  you  follow  this  beginning  candidly,  it  will 
lead  you  on  to  see  that  "  Nature  "  is  a  false  deity, 
and  its  "  laws "  the  fictions  of  a  superstition  ;  to 
adore  the  Holy  Trinity  of  the  Christian  faith  as  the 


276  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

One  True  God,  and  in  the  Divine  society  of  men 
which  He  has  established  for  our  good,  to  find  Him 
your  light  and  your  salvation. 

My  last  words  are  for  my  earnest  fellow-Chris- 
tians who  are  interested  in  the  "  Science  "  of  the  day 
and  accustomed  to  use  its  language,  and  who  admit 
its  conclusions  as  ascertained  verities  by  which  we 
must  adjust  our  previous  impressions  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Word  of  God.  You  and  I  have  a  common 
interest  and  affection  that  far  exceeds  in  value  the 
scientific  knowledge,  estimate  that  as  high  as  we 
may.  We  have  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism? 
which  is  a  sacred  profession  of  that  Lord  and  faith, 
and  of  the 'union  of  our  hearts  in  the  Church.  Let 
us  decide  this  question  first  upon  that  common 
ground  of  ours  ;  after  that  let  any  other  interest  be 
heard  in  argument.  Let  us  begin  by  trying  it  by 
these  highest  tests  of  truth.  What  will  most  honor 
Him  "  by  Whom  all  things  were  made,  and  Who  for 
us  men  and  for -our  salvation  came  down  from 
Heaven  "  ?  What  will  tend  most  to  draw  all  our 
fellow-men  into  this  faith  and  salvation  ?  What 
will  most  make  us  all  see  God  now  and  love  Him 
most  ? 

One  fact  and  "  ascertained  verity  "  is  that  Our 
Lord  is  coming  to  judge  the  world,  no  one  knows 
how  soon.  What  view  of  that  Cosmos  will  most 
promote  a  loving  looking  for  Him  ?  Will  He  then 
"find  faith  upon  the  earth"?  He  has  asked  that 
question.  Is  there  not  danger  that  our  ambition  to 
know  so  much  of  the  inferior  things  without  taking 


SUGGESTIONS  AND   REMONSTRANCES.  277 

care  for  faith,  is  solving  the  m3^stery  of  His  question 
by  this  very  sacrifice  of  our  loving  faith  to  this  cold 
and  unspiritual  "  Science  "  ?  What  will  it  profit  us, 
or  relieve  our  shame  and  grief  at  having  helped  on 
that  result,  that  we  have  gained  the  whole  world  of 
that  knowledge,  if  when  we  really  come  to  know 
all,  we  find  that  we  thus  sacrificed  the  highest  truth? 

Therefore,  I  entreat  you  to  consider  and  reconsider 
this  well.  Probably  you  have  never  before  had  it 
presented  to  you  in  this  way.  You  may  have  been 
only  impatient  and  indignant  with  those  who  said 
that  Science  was  an  enemy  of  Faith.  But  were  they 
altogether  so  unreasonable  ?  Perhaps,  if  they  gave 
no  reasons,  theirs  was  yet  a  strong  conviction  fixed 
upon  the  grounds  now  set  forth  in  this  book. 
Refute  them  if  they  are  wrong,  or  if  upon  this  study 
you  find  them  right,  join  with  us  heartily  in  that 
truth,  cost  what  it  may.  If  I  am  partly  right  but 
partly  wrong,  show  that ;  or  if  my  arguments  and 
apprehensions  are  all  wrong,  prove  that.  The  oppos- 
ing truth  will  then  come  out  the  clearer,  and  true 
faith  in  God  be  the  stronger  for  clearing  up  these 
troubles  of  other  minds.  But,  again  I  implore,  if  you 
do  begin  to  see  that  you  and  all  our  admired  leaders 
of  opinion  in  this  have  entered  upon  a  deviation  from 
truth  and  a  tendency  most  dangerous  to  the  souls  of 
all  men  ;  for  God's  sake  and  all  these  souls'  sakes, 
leave  it  now,  no  matter  how  great  names  and  influ- 
ences detain  you,  or  how  weak  and  unknown  until 
now  is  this  voice  of  remonstrance. 

You  may  think  that  you  are  indeed  to  be  Chris- 
24 


278  THE  KEIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OP  LAW." 

tians  in  all  that  is  especially  religious,  but  that  for 
science  you  must  have  with  all  the  scientific,  many 
of  whom  have  no  Christian  faith,  some  "  common 
ground,"  which  can  only  be  that  of  "  Natural  law  " 
and  its  "  reign  "  (no  matter  how  questionable  the 
relations  of  that  notion  to  faith).  But  is  not  this  a 
mistake?  In  other  matters,  perhaps,  a  man  may 
thus  distinguish  his  different  "  capacities."  He  may 
say,  "  I  will  do  one  thing  and  have  one  association 
in  my  capacity  of  citizen^  and  others  in  that  oY  scholar.'^ 
But  does  not  my  religion  require  the  whole  man  and 
all  my  time;  other  things  only  as  subordinate  parts 
of  that?  Are  not  its  sympathies  and  fellowship  our 
sole  and  sufficient  union  with  fellow-men,  except  so 
far  as  any  other  association  may  accord  perfectly 
with  that,  and  be  subject  to  its  interests  and  prin- 
ciples; so  that  nothing  of  them  is  to  be  conceded, 
suppressed  or  silenced  even  for  a  time,  in  order  to 
join  with  other  men  in  promoting  these  other  pur- 
poses? 

One  thing  which  makes  the  Church  of  God  so 
feeble  and  slow  in  its  conquest  of  all  this  world  to 
Our  Lord,  is  this  modern  notion  of  its  members  some- 
times acting  in  other  "  capacities,"  as  if  the  social 
man,  the  political  man  or  the  intelligent  man  were 
for  the  time  some  one  else  than  the  Christian  man, 
or  could  then  ''  waive  "  his  character  as  this  last  to 
*'  meet  on  common  ground  "  with  his  neighbor  or 
fellow-citizen  who  was  not  a  Christian.  This  ques- 
tionable tendency  is  much  boasted  of  as  the  wise  and 
honorable  liberality  of  our  age.     But  has  it  not  been 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  KEMONSTRANCES.  279 

allowed  at  least  scope  enough  in  society,  in  schools 
for  the  young,  and  in  politics,  without  exacting  of  a 
"  son  of  the  Lord  Almighty  "  that  to  study  geology 
and  "  biology "  he  shall  meet  those  who  do  not 
believe  the  Word  of  God  "  on  common  ground  "  by 
expelling  from  his  expressions  and  thoughts  for  the 
time,  the  very  highest  truth  ? 

I  would  that  we  might  all  now  finally  reconsider 
these  words  in  studying  certain  words  which  are 
truth'  itself.  They  are  not  those  of  Moses  with  any 
supposed  "  limited  range  of  information  about 
physical  facts."  They  do  not  at  all  belong  to  the  im- 
perfect truth  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  are  not  even 
words  of  the  Lord's  Apostles  as  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  They  are  His  own  utterance,  the  farthest 
removed  from  mysteries  and  figures  which  are  to  be 
explained  by  later  knowledge.  They  are  the  most 
simple,  the  most  practical,  in  the  daily  use  of  the 
Christian  child  as  well  as  of  the  wisest  man  who 
prays,  and  they  are  uttered  in  every  service  of  a 
hundred  thousand  churches.  I  appeal  to  all  of  you 
as  you  believe  in  Him  Who  said  to  us,  "  When  ye 
pray  say "  these  words,  whether  the  thought  of 
"  the  Eeign  of  God  "  is  not  in  all  their  spirit,  and 
whether  that  of  the  "reign  of  law"  is  not  contrary 
to  it. 

^^ Our  Father  Who  art  in  Heaven"  [the  beginning 
and  end  of  our  life  ;  a  Person  Whom  we  love  and 
Who  loves  us  ;  and  as  this  love  is  our  first  desire,  so 
our  first  request  of  Him  is]  Hallowed  be  Thy  Name. 
[It  is  the  greatest  of  desires  and  delights  to  us  to 


280  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 


behold  His  exceeding  Power  and  Beauty  and  say 
"All  glory  be  to  Thee  Almighty  God  Our  Heavenly 
Father."]  Thy  Kiyigdom  comCy  Thy  Will  he  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  done  in  Heaven.  [His  Kingdom,  His 
reign  !  He  is  the  Great  King.  How  is  His  Kingdom 
yet  to  come  ?  By  the  victory  of  His  love  in  the 
complete  redemption  of  mankind,  but  also,  and  as  a 
part  of  this,  in  the  joyful  acknowledgment  of  that 
power  and  reign  in  all  things,  as  the  other  words 
also  declare  it,  *'  Thy  Will  be  done  on  Earth,"  and 
known  as  so  done,  "as  it  is  in  Heaven,"  where  God 
is  All  in  All  to  every  soul.]  Give  us  this  day  our 
daily  bread ;  [It  is  also  a  part  of  our  rightful  desire 
and  of  His  Will  and  Power  (which  we  have  already 
prayed  might  have  effect),  that  we  should  have  all 
that  is  needful  for  our  present  life  ;  and,  what  is  yet 
more  happy,  should  receive  it  all  directly  from  His 
hand.  But  then  to  think  how  we  have  fallen  from 
man's  first  estate  of  knowing  and  loving  Him  in 
everything !  So  that  we  have  as  great  need  of  this 
pardon,]  Forgive  us  our  trespasses  as  we  forgive  those 
who  trespass  against  us.  [We  dare  not  and  we  would 
not  ask  this  unless  we  have  the  true  penitence  which 
forgives  the  little  wrongs  which  we  do  another ;  for 
our  estrangement  from  Divine  love  has  made  us 
selfish  and  unjust,  and  impatience  and  revenge  for 
these  would  impel  us  farther  from  Thy  Will  and 
Law,  that  each  of  us  should  love  his  neighbor  as 
himself.  Thus  too,  as  sins  are  our  greatest  calamities, 
and  there  are  wicked  spirits  who  led  in  their  rebel- 
lion  against  Thee  by  one  most   powerful,  are   our 


SUGGESTIONS   AND   REMONSTRANCES.  281 

greatest  enemies  by  tempting  us  to  sin,  so  we  pray,] 
Lead  us  not  into  iemptatmi,  but  deliver  us  from  the  evil 
cne.  [And  so  we  come  to  what  is  the  end,  as  it  was 
the  beginning  of  our  prayer,  even  the  Will  and  Glory 
of  God.]  For  Thine  is  the  Kingdom  and  the 
Power  and  the  Glory  forever  and  ever.  [The 
Heign  of  God^  alone  and  always:  the  Power,  as 
much,  as  immediate,  now,  as  in  the  beginning.  The 
Glory  of  that  irresistible  Will  of  Love  in  all  the 
immortal  future  which  we  shall  enjoy  without  pain, 
without  disappointment,  without  fear  and  without 
fault.] 

"For  Thine  is  the  Kingdorn  ":  is  that  "  the  reign  of 
law  "  ?  Away  with  this  cold  and  feeble  fiction  which 
hides  the  truth  of  all  truths  !  Let  that  be  always  in 
sight.  Let  there  be  no  moment  of  time  in  which  we 
do  not  hear  that  last  and  greatest  voice  of  Divine 
prophecy,  and  join  in  it  as  the  eternal  chorus: 

"And  he  shall  EEIGN  forever  and  ever!  " 


283         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 


APPENDIX  A. 

METAPHYSICS  :    ITS  VALUE    AND    INFLUENCE  AS  TO  QUES- 
TIONS OF  RELIGION,  AND  OF  DUTY  TO  GOD  AND  MAN. 

IN  this  investigation,  I  do  indeed  allow  little  or  no 
value  to  Metaphysics,  but  treat  it  rather  as  an 
impertinence  in  questions  like  these,  hindering  the 
attainment  of  truth.  I  beg  the  candid  attention  of 
many  devout  and  thoughtful  persons  to  whom  this 
will  at  first  seem  very  unreasonable,  while  I  state 
my  reasons  for  it. 

It  is  contrary  to  the  method  of  the  modern  apolo- 
gists who  pass  for  the  more  profound  and  wise.  In 
fact,  whoever  neglects  the  metaphysical  arguments 
is  supposed  by  this  "  public  opinion "  to  be  suffi- 
ciently answered  in  being  himself  neglected  as 
incapable  of  doing  any  service  to  Christian  truth. 
And  whoever  directly  censures  it  is  only  noticed  as 
a  stupid  bigot  and  a  greater  enemy  to  that  truth 
than  the  infidel.  In  a  real  search  for  truth  this  is 
not  wise  or  candid.  The  Christian  "  philosopher  " 
ought  to  require  that  it  be  first  ^proved  that  Meta- 
physics is  any  such  valuable  element  (or  process)  of 
religious  truth  ;  and  still  more,  that  it  is  such  a 
foundation  of  true  faith  as  is  so  much  assumed. 
Even  if  once  convinced  of  it  himself,  he  ought  to 
follow  with  candor  any  re-examination  of  the  ques- 
tion by  the  Word  of  God  and  our  best  reason,  which 
is  undertaken  by  those  who  question  that  postulate. 


METAPHYSICS. 


As  the  assumption  is  strong  in  the  long-continued 
acquiescence  of  writers  of  greatest  authority,  I  freely 
admit  that  I  am  bound  to  set  forth  more  fully  than 
in  the  text  why  I  reject  it.  But  surely  either  these 
reasons  ought  to  be  met  and  distinctly  refuted,  or 
metaphysical  discussions  should  be  withdrawn  from 
all  our  books  "for  the  defence  and  confirmation  of 
the  Grospel."  Before  proceeding  to  those  reasons  I 
would  justify  myself  to  some  who  may  question 
whether  the  assumption  controverted  is  made,  or  at 
least  so  as  to  be  important,  by  citing  some  instances 
as  representing  what  is  general  among  the  more 
famous  Christian  writers  of  this  age  in  our  mother 
country,  and  public  journals  which  set  the  fashion 
of  opinion  in  our  own. 

Sir  W.  Hamilton  as  the  metaphysician  of  orthodox 
faith,  and  of  greatest  influence  in  our  present  Eng- 
lish-speaking thought,  affirms  positively  in  more 
than  one  passage  and  change  of  phraseology,  that 
"  Theology  is  wholly  dependent  on  Psychology," 
(which  he  uses  as  equivalent  to  Metaphysics,  though 
he  sometimes  distinguishes  it  as,  together  with 
"Ontology,"  making  up  that  total.)  Then  in  the 
interesting  volume  called  "  Faith  and  Free  Thought," 
published  some  years  ago  by  the  "  Christian  Evidence 
Society,"  of  England,  we  have  first  a  discourse  by 
Prof.  Mozley  to  show  that  we  must  be  metaphysical 
to  have  Christian  faith.  As  he  expresses  it  in  one 
place:  "Even  the  Bible  can  no  more  be  understood 
without  the  aid  of  these  great  metaphysical  ideas 
than  it  can  be  without  grammar."     [I  am  not  now 


284        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

enquiring  into  the  truth  of  this  statement  (that  will 
come  later),  but  only  showing  what  such  writers 
say.]  Dean  Merivale  makes  the  same  assumption 
in  substance  in  his  singular  essay  in  the  same 
volume,  upon  "the  Contrast  between  Pagan  and 
Christian  Society." 

Even  Dean  Mansel  in  his  many  ways  admirable 
volume  upon  "  The  Limits  of  Eeligious  Thought," 
which  was  suggested  by  the  danger  of  which  I  speak, 
and  was  meant  to  expose  it,  is  too  much  under  these 
intellectual  illusions  to  escape  the  mischief  entirely 
himself.  Of  this  his  critics  and  opposers  took  most 
annoying  advantage.  He  plays  with  the  fascinating 
deceits  of  religious  metaphysics  in  such  a  longing 
way,  that  he  can  hardly  defend  himself  against  the 
charge  of  admitting,  that  man  cannot  '*  know  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ  whom  He  has  sent." 

For  our  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  as  showing  the 
prevailing  drift  of  opinion  here,  I  may  note  first, 
that  in  these  questions,  whatever  has  most  authority 
in  England  has  scarcely  less  with  us.  So  also  not 
very  long  ago  I  saw  in  the  "  Independent,"  a  relig- 
ious newspaper  of  wide  circulation  and  influence,  an 
article  in  which  a  writer  of  no  little  research  and 
force,  admits  with  regret  the  decline  of  Christian 
faith  among  reading  people,  and  concludes  that  the 
only  hope  of  its  restoration  is  in  a  new  "  ontology." 
An  instance  in  some  respects  even  more  to  the 
purpose  is  that  so  intelligent  a  defender  of  Christian 
truth  as  the  late  Prof.  Bledsoe,  in  many  ways  our 
most  profound  philosopher,  argues  to  the  same  effect, 


METAPHYSICS.  385 


and  even  (as  I  have  cited  Prof.  Mozley  above,)  insists 
upon  every  man  being  a  metaphysician  malgre  lui, 
(See  "Southern  Eeview,"  Art.  "English  Positivism.") 

Now  nothing  strikes  one  who  tries  to  study  all 
metaphysics  fairly,  or  at  least  to  get  a  general 
knowledge  of  it,  more  than  its  contradictions  and 
reciprocal  condemnations.  If  he  has  set  out  to  be  a 
zealous  partisan  of  some  one  "school,"  the  task  is 
much  easier.  He  must  then  indeed  pretend  to 
understand  many  words  and  distinctions  which  really 
convey  no  meaning  to  his  mind.  After  a  while  he 
will  really  believe  that  he  does  understand  them. 
But  by  sticking  to  the  general  method  of  believing 
that  all  which  his  master  teaches  must  be  transcen- 
dent truth,  and  that  all  from  whom  he  differs  have 
failed  to  receive  that  truth  from  lack  of  intellectual 
force  or  from  mere  prejudice,  he  gets  on  quite 
smoothly.  If,  however,  he  is  free  and  candid  enough 
to  seek  for  the  truth  from  all  the  metaphysicians 
alike,  then  for  one  thing  at  least  he  is  bewildered^ 
not  only  by  what  is  unintelligible  in  each  of  them, 
but  by  their  reciprocal  contradictions. 

In  this  so-called  science  there  has  been  no  progress 
of  knowledge,  no  advance  from  its  beginnings, 
gradually  eliminating  the  false  and  clearing  u])  the 
doubtful.  There  is  no  great  residuum  of  agreed  and 
demonstrated  truth  after  you  have  discarded  mere 
individual  opinions.  There  is  not  a  single  so-called 
"  principle  "  of  metaphysics  which  is  not  denied  by 
some  one  of  great  name  among  these  philosophers. 
There  is  nothing  which  is  not  still  left  in  doubt  for 


386        THE   KEIGN  OP   GOD  NOT   "THE  KEIGN  OF  LAW." 

learners.  There  is  no  acknowledged  umpire  of  the 
disputes.  In  our  natural  sciences  there  is  some- 
thing which  passes  for  authority  in  the  consent  of 
writers  of  our  own  time.  But  none  of  the  questions 
of  metaphysics  are  ever  so  disposed  of  that  they 
cease  to  be  questions.  What  has  been  allowed  on 
all  hands  in  one  age  it  may  indeed  become  the 
fashion  of  the  next  to  dismiss  as  unworthy  of  atten- 
tion. Yet  after  a  while  it  reappears  as  the  trium- 
phant truth,  either  under  a  new  name  as  a  great 
discovery,  or  in  the  pomp  of  a  banished  king  restored 
by  the  devoted  loyalty  of  new  champions.  Any 
extensive  reading  of  metaphysics  conducts  one  again 
and  again  through  these  processes,  with  such  com- 
plications of  writers  and  schools,  and  such  various 
combinations  of  what  were  before  considered  essen- 
tially opposite  doctrines,  and  such  shouts  of  assured 
and  final  victory  of  each  party  in  turn,  that  honest 
students  are  worn  out  with  confusion  and  loss  of 
connected  thought. 

And  there  are  the  like  contradictions  of  fact  as 
well  as  of  opinion.  For  instance,  there  ought  to  be 
no  question  of  what  the  famous  philosophers  taught, 
whose  books  have  been  in  all  scholars'  hands  for 
ages,  and  whose  opinions  are  just  what  other  thinking 
men  have  been  ever  since  ranging  themselves  for  or 
against.  Yet  there  are  quite  different  accounts  given 
of  those  opinions,  not  by  the  misrepresentations  of 
adversaries,  but  by  the  statements  of  admirers. 
That  would  be  a  curious  book  which  would  give  all 
the  doctrines  of  Plato  as  stated  by  different  Pla- 
tonists. 


METAPHYSICS.  287 


A  later  instance,  and  one  even  more  connected 
with  our  present  investigation,  is  that  of  Des  Cartes, 
one  of  the  greatest  of  thinkers  and  of  those  who 
really  influence  the  thoughts  of  other  men  now. 
^' The  History  of  Philosophy"  by  Kuno  Fischer, 
which  is  the  authority  in  such  matters  followed  by 
our  "American  Cyclopedia,"  to  which  four-fifths  of 
our  people  would  go  for  information  with  entire 
confidence,  says  that  the  doctrines  of  Des  Cartes, 
and  of  his  great  follower  Malebranche,  are  those 
which  Spinoza  followed  directly  to  all  his  conclu- 
sions. Now  both  of  the  former  were  devout  believers 
in  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all 
mankind,  and  would  entertain  no  opinion  for  a 
moment  which  they  could  not  hold  along  with  that 
the  highest  truth.  On  the  other  hand  Spinoza 
fancied  that  he  proved  that  there  was  no  God,  that 
that  was  only  a  word  for  a  huge  "nature,"  that 
there  was  no  real  sin,  and  thus  no  such  person  as 
the  Saviour. 

I  cannot  conceive  of  two  sets  of  opinions  more 
opposed  than,  on  the  one  hand,  the  profound  and 
devout  speculations  of  the  two  French  Christians 
who  saw  the  person  and  power  of  G-od  in  everything, 
and  on  the  other,  the  blind  pantheism  of  Spinoza, 
which  sees  Him  in  nothing.  If  we  do  not  at  first 
see  this  clearly,  we  may  come  to  do  so  by  setting  in 
contrast  those  most  sublime  words  which  begin  St. 
John's  gospel,  and  which  the  Christians  could  use  as 
their  formula  of  thought  (and  adoration),  with  this 
travesty  of  them  which  would  fairly  state  the  Pan- 


288  THE  KEIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

theist  notion :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  world 
(xofffj.oq'),  and  the  ivorld  was  with  God.  and  the  ivorld 
ivas  G-od."  It  is  just  such  a  sacrilegious  inversion  of 
meaning  when  the  followers  of  Spinoza  quote  St. 
Paul  as  in  favor  of  their  outright  denial  of  God:  "In 
Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being."  Their 
false  notion  and  this  great  truth  are  exclusive  con- 
tradictions of  one  another. 

Even  the  great  philosopher  of  our  own  race  and 
language  has  not  escaped  this  treatment.  We  have 
all  taken  for  granted  that  Bacon  was  so  wise  in 
thought,  and  so  powerful  and  beautiful  in  the  ex- 
pression of  it,  that  we  knew  what  he  meant  by 
"induction,"  and  were  sure  that  it  was  the  true 
method  of  physical  science.  Yet  our  metaphysicians 
now  fall  into  controversy  over  this  very  matter,  and 
as  to  what  his  real  method  was.  It  is  a  powerful 
illustration  of  the  fascinations  and  illusions  of  such 
reasonings  that  even  he  who  speaks  of  the  barren- 
ness of  metaphysics  and  calls  Plato  a  sophist,  does 
not  quite  escape  them.  And  now  Mr.  Huxley  decries 
Bacon  and  his  services  to  science,  with  a  conscious- 
ness of  his  own  departing  from  induction  and  reliance 
upon  metaphysical  imagination  for  the  new  science, 
as  well  as  from  the  instinctive  aversion  of  his 
wnreligious  method  of  thinking  to  that  of  the  devout 
philosopher. 

The  speculations  of  metaphysics  are  indeed  very 
attractive  to  ingenious  minds.  Such  severe  abstrac- 
tions do  strengthen  the  intellect  in  some  directions, 
and  may  conduct  to  valuable  truth  in  some  matters. 


METAPHYSICS. 


But  experience  shows  that  upon  the  whole  this  is  a 
very  doubtful  process  for  adding  to  any  real  know- 
ledge. If  this  were  all,  it  might  still  pass  for  a 
harmless  amusement  of  mere  men  of  books,  or  even 
of  men  of  action  in  their  times  of  necessary-  rest. 
But  it  always  (whether  from  the  very  nature  of  all 
its  questions,  or  by  some  dangerous  fascination  of 
the  more  vigorous  minds,)  in  fact  works  its  way  into 
questions  of  religion,  and  offers  itself  to  give  men 
knowledge  of  God.  And  then,  as  all  experience 
shows,  and  as  we  might  wisely  judge  from  the 
nature  of  things,  and  as  we  do  know  more  surely 
still  by  the  admonition  of  the  Blessed  One  Himself, 
it  only  confuses  what  we  know  already  as  Christians, 
and  conducts  us  away  from  the  highest  truth. 

Yet,  as  we  have  seen  before,  learned  Christian 
writers  tell  us  all,  that  what  we  all  want  to  re-estab- 
lish waning  faith  is  still  more  of  this  "  ontology," 
etc.  Thus,  even  Prof.  Mozley  confounds  great 
spiritual  truth  of  which  God  informs  us  directly, 
with  the  unfruitful  and  absurd  ambition  of  men  to 
construct  a  human  science  of  this  truth ;  to  compre- 
hend the  absolute  ;  to  measure  in  their  thought  the 
unmeasurable,  to  analyze  what  is  absolutely  simple, 
and  to  advance  by  their  reasonings  even  beyond 
that  manj^-sided  vastness  of  which  they  can  never 
see  more  than  the  side  which  is  at  the  time  nearest 
to  them.  This  is  what  they  do,  \vhen,  instead  of 
receiving  direct  from  Him  who  gives  and  who  is  all 
truth,  the  thought  of  the  Infinite,  and  of  the  Be- 
ginning, they  set  to  work  upon  it  as  a  little  raw 
25 


290  THE   IJEIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

miilci'iiil  from  which  they  are  to  digest  and  to  ex- 
pand a  ''  science."  Prof.  Mozley's  own  illustration 
about  "grammar"  is  an  illustration  of  his  own  mis- 
take. It  implies  that  no  man  can  read  the  Holy 
Bible  with  understanding  unless  he  holds  a  book  of 
technical  grammar  in  the  other  hand,  and  labori- 
ously applies  its  artificial  terms  and  rules  to  each 
sentence  of  that  Word  of  God.  The  diversion  of 
thought  and  sterility  of  spiritual  good  which  would 
result  from  such  a  process,  is  some  illustration, 
though  inadequate,  of  the  effect  of  metaphysics  upon 
religious  thought. 

I  cannot  myself  see  what  place  it  allows  to  the 
knowledge  of  God  given  us  directly  by  Himself  in 
His  Word.  That  Word  includes,  first,  the  primar}' 
converse  of  the  Father  with  man,  and  its  tradition 
through  all  ages  since;  secondly,  God  the  Son,  the 
Eternal  Word  by  prophets  or  in  human  Person,  and 
in  His  Church  ;  and  thirdly,  the  Holy  Scriptures 
living  in  the  Church  by  God  the  Holy  Ghost  "  lead- 
ing into  all  truth."  If  that  Word  is  inferior  to  the 
Metaph^^sics,  of  what  use  is  it  ?  If  superior  and 
more  full,  including  all  that  can  be  learned  by  the 
other,  why  not  use  it  alone?  If  the  Divine  Word  is 
only  supplemental  to  the  other  (as  seems  to  be  the 
theor}^  of  the  Christian  metaphysicians  so  far  as 
they  have  any,)  wh}^  does  not  the  former  acknow- 
ledge the  latter  as  antecedent  and  of  authority?  Or 
how  can  this  philosophical  "ontology"  be  the 
primary  knowledge  of  God,  of  which  His  Word  is 
only  the  supplement,   while   the    former    is    still    a 


METAPHYSICS.  291 


matter  of  research,  and  most  indefinitely  incomplete, 
as  its  champions  themselves  will  say,  and  the  latter 
is  finished  ? 

Or,  taking  the  only  remaining  alternative,  if  the 
Word  of  God  be  the  primary  knowledge  of  Him,  and 
the  other  the  necessary  complement,  then  we  should 
first  exhaust  that  before  proceeding  to  our  religious 
"  ontology."  No  man  has  yet  done  that.  He  who 
thinks  he  has,  casts  the  greatest  and  unjust  reproach 
upon  it  as  defective.  So  indeed  does  the  whole 
assumption  of  getting  knowledge  in  our  religion 
from  metaphysics.  Certainly  all  later  researches 
should  start  from  the  Word  of  God  as  the  first,  the 
plain,  and  the  undisputed  truth,  and  discard  an}^ 
subsequent  apparent  discovery  which  did  not  accord 
with  that :  which  is  the  exact  reverse  of  all  actual 
metaphysical  reasonings  in  religion. 

If  we  were  truly  candid  the  whole  matter  would 
be  cleared  of  misapprehension  by  attention  to  the 
just  comparison  which  has  been  so  often  used  of  a 
little  child  who,  being  told  by  his  most  wise  and 
loving  father  of  that  father's  doings  and  feelings  so 
far  as  they  anyways  concerned  him,  and  as  far  as  he 
could  understand  them  — some  of  them  things  done 
before  he  was  born  —  should  decline  to  believe  all  this 
upon  the  simple  information,  and  set  to  work  by  his 
own  observations,  and  by  refiections  upon  his  own 
ways,  "  to  lay  a  foundation  of  belief"  *  in  the  fjither's 
information,  or  at  least  to  "verify"*  those  state- 
ments.     Such    a   performance    of  the    child    would 

♦These  are  some  of  the  phrases  of  metaphysicians  about  this. 


292         THE   REIGN  OP   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP   LAW." 

make  us  smile.  But  in  every  point  of  contrast  the 
'^Father  in  Heaven"  is  vastly  more  above  man  in 
giving  him  knowledge  of  Himself  than  any  of  us  is 
above  this  infant  child. 

Or  suppose  we  compare  it  to  a  number  of  such 
young  children  talking  with  one  another  :  one  say- 
ing to  his  playfellow  :  ''  Father  tells  me  that  the 
sun  there  is  larger  than  all  the  world  we  live  in  ; 
that  it  remains  still  while  we  are  moving  swiftly  as 
if  on  the  rim  of  a  great  wheel ;  that  the  world  is 
such  a  great  ball  turning  clear  around  from  one 
morning  to  another, —  can  you  believe  it?"  ''No/' 
says  the  other,  "  for  I  see  the  sun  rise  and  travel 
through  the  sky  every  day.  I  walk  on  the  ground 
which  is  flat.  But  then  father  says  he  can  explain 
all  this  and  make  us  see  that  he  is  right ;  and  so  he 
talks  away.  But  after  all  the  sun  does  move  and 
the  world  is  flat.  Still  let  us  try  and  see  if  he  can 
be  right.  Let  us  start  and  go  right  west  as  far  as 
w^e  can  to-day,  and  to  where  the  sun  sets  behind  that 
hill,  and  see  whether  when  we  get  near  it  it  is 
standing  still,  and  whether  the  world  is  round  or 
flat."  Then  these  young  persons  having  by  this 
experiment  found  nothing  to  "  verify  "  their  fathers' 
words,  fall  back  upon  what  "reason  "  teaches  them. 

"  God's  Word  written  "  speaks  to  us  of  all  things 
Divine,  always  in  the  simple  and  direct  way.  It 
takes  for  granted  that  when  it  tells  any  man  about 
Godj  whether  ignorant  or  learned,  with  just  a  little 
intelligence,  or  with  the  most  powerful  mind  He 
ever  gives  one  of  us,  he  knows  what  it  means  with- 


METAPHYSICS.  293 


out  any  metaphysical  reasoning  about  the  "  me  " 
and  the  "not  me,"  etc.;  that  when  it  tells  him  that 
God  created  all  things,  he  can  and  ought  to  receive 
that  knowledge  fully  without  any  ponder! ngs  and 
questionings  concerning  "causation."  It  is  not  at 
all  relevant  or  necessary  for  us  now  to  take  part  in 
the  philosophic  wars  about  "innate  (or  con-nate) 
ideas."  The  fact  is  enough  for  us  that  a  "  man  that 
has  never  been  taught  letters,"  or  a  little  child,  can 
receive  this  knowledge  of  God  at  once  from  Himself; 
while  he  who  will  not  do  this,  but  insists  upon  first 
being  a  student  of  ontologies^  etc. — even  if  he  be  a 
Christian  to  begin  with  —  climbs  up  to  the  same  truth 
in  a  weary  and  bewildered  way,  or  perhaps  ends  as  a 
dark  doubter,  such  as  certainly  many  of  the  most 
acute  metaphysicians  have  been  and  are. 

This  shows  further  how  utterly  mistaken  are 
those  champions  of  faith  who  maintain  that  a  man 
cannot  have  religious  thought  except  by  being  meta- 
phj^sical.  Their  own  ingenuity  has  enticed  them 
into  a  juggle  of  words  which  confound  our  simple 
and  direct  assent  to  God's  Word  with  abstruse 
reasonings  about  "consciousness  "  and  "  causation." 


These  last,  whether  true  or  not,  are  a  few  men's 
elaborations.  The  other  is  a  universal  fact,  as  well 
known  (and  even  better)  to  the  laborer  as  to  the 
student.  Could  not  Cowper's  weaver  use  his  eye- 
sight without  knowing  and  accepting  the  undulatory 
theory  of  light?  No  less  could  he  believe  without 
an  abstruse  theory  of  belief  To  say  then  that  an 
ignorant  man  may  at  once  believe  God's  words,  but 


294  THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

that  the  ii)lciligoiiL  Jiuisl  lirssL  "  lay  the  foundation  of 
belief"  by  ontology,  etc.,  is  its  own  refutation.  For 
certainly  then  he  who  at  first  knows  the  less  knows 
the  more.  He  at  once  attains  knowledge,  and  that 
the  \Q\'y  greatest,  which  the  other  achieves  only 
later  and  b}^  study.  There  is  but  one  sense  in  which 
this  paradox  can  be  true.  That  is  the  sense  of  God's 
Word  in  its  condemnation  of  this  most  subtle  sort  of 
human  vanity  (with  all  the  other  sorts),  when  men 
after  having  received  knowledge  of  God  from  Him- 
self, instead  of  having  the  simple  faith  and  love 
which  should  ensue,  set  to  work  to  use  this  know- 
ledge as  material  for  their  intellectual  ambition  ;  to 
seek  by  argument  and  controversy  the  very  informa- 
tion already  given  them  from  Heaven.  Thus  "  the 
world  by  ivisdom  knew  not  God.'" 

I  would  ask  the  Christian  metaphysicians  what 
else  this  does  mean  ?  It  does  not  stand  alone,  but 
among  other  just  such  Divine  warnings  against  try- 
ing to  gain  religious  truth  by  human  reasoning. 
What  do  you  make  of  our  Lord's  saying  that  the 
greatest,  most  profound,  and  precious  truths  are 
hidden  "  from  the  wise  and  prudent  (^o^wv  xat  gwztiov, 
the  philosophic  and  intellectual)  and  revealed  unto 
babes  "  ?  Did  He  mean  merely  the  wrangling  soph- 
ists ?  But  He  does  not  say  aofpiGxwv^  but  aoipCo^^^  as 
also  St.  Paul  in  the  corresponding  passages.  Did  He 
mean  Plato  and  the  Platonists  and  the  other  meta- 
ph3'6ical  theologists  with  their  followers?  Plainly 
to  me.  What  a  "  blind  guide,"  in  the  chief  truth, 
would  Plato  be  to  us  Christians  now,  and  is  he,  so 


METAPHYSICS.  295 

far  as  upon  whatever  pretext  we  follow  him,  with 
all  his  charms  of  style  and  subtlety  of  speculation  ! 

He  supposes  every  man  to  love  truth  and  good- 
ness for  their  own  sake,  and  that  it  is  merely  from 
intellectual  ignorance  that  he  ever  misses  them. 
The  Gospel  of  God  shows  us  that  this  is  false,  and 
that  if  man  sets  forth  from  this  vain  imagination  to 
discourse  upon  his  duty  and  upon  God,  his  foolish 
heart  will  only  be  darkened  by  his  most  ingenious 
studies  ;  that  what  he  needs  first  is  to  seek  truth 
about  these  things  in  the  exactly  opposite  direction, 
of  penitence  and  a  child's  obedient  faith  in  what  God 
says  to  men  in  words. 

Perhaps  some  will  say  that  what  the  Word  of 
God  itself  warns  us  against  in  this,  is  the  discarding 
of  its  authority  entirely,  or  interpreting  it  only  by 
men's  reasonings.  But  this  last  is  just  what  all 
religious  metaphysics  does.  All  the  words  of  our 
Lord  and  of  His  Apostles  assume  and  imply  that  it 
is  easy  for  all  men  alike  to  receive  the  light  of  His 
truth  in  His  Word ;  that  this  does  not  at  all  depend 
upon  brilliancy  of  intelligence  or  subtlety  of  thought ; 
on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  always  danger  that 
these  will  actually  mislead  us  from  that  truth  by 
exciting  vanity  and  self-confidence,  which  all  men 
have  to  overcome  by  penitence  and  humility. 

It  is  very  unwise  in  a  Christian  believer  to  meet 
him  who  brings  forward  this  truth,  with  reproaches 
that  he  is  trying  to  degrade  and  blind  the  intelli- 
gence of  man.  The  real,  the  on\j  question  for  us  is 
whether  what  has  been  said  of  humbly  receiving  the 


296  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

Word  of  God,  instead  of  subjecting  it  to  our  intellec- 
tual self-sufficiency,  is  the  truth — is  some  of  that 
very  supreme  truth  which  God  Himself  in  His  love 
utters  to  us  directly.  If  so,  the  only  blindness  and 
degradation  is  in  refusing  to  receive  it.  Such  truth 
it  is,  belonging  with  that  other  great  truth  which 
the  Divine  Light  and  Love  so  plainlj^  imparts  to  us 
— that  pride  is  one  of  man's  greatest  dangers  and 
weaknesses,  and  humility  toward  God  his  blessing 
and  honor,  far  beyond  any  knowledge  real  or  sup- 
posed. 

Would  not  the  ''many  wise"  of  St.  Paul's  day,  if 
they  were  living  now,  have  just  this  angny  disdain  of 
his  reproofs,  and  call  him  in  the  clumsy  jargon  of 
some  of  our  "  liberals,"  an  "  obscurantist  "  ?  But  you 
may  say  that  his  censure  meant  such  or  such  a  mis- 
use of  reason  in  religious  questions ;  that  you  contend 
only  for  its  proper  use.  Just  so,  no  doubt,  they 
would  have  said.  All  the  (nxpoi  from  Plato  down  are 
confident  that  they  know  the  limits  of  reason,  and 
do  not  go  beyond  them.  And  so,  each  in  his  way 
and  degree,  nullifies  to  himself  the  "  wisdom  that  is 
from  above." 

The  Divine  words  which  I  have  quoted  and  al- 
luded to  are  plain  and  full.  They  contain  no  excep- 
tions, they  suggest  no  qualifications.  They  are  in 
exact  accord  with  the  great  principle  of  receiving 
the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child.  They  imply 
the  exclusion  from  religious  faith  of  all  philosophic 
speculation.  This  is  a  necessity  of  any  "  Word  of 
God"   as  such,  which   must  be    made   up  of  words 


METAPHYSICS.  297 


which  tell  their  sense  directly  to  men,  and  are  not  to 
be  wrangled  over  by  ingenious  disputants,  and  so  to 
mean  whatever  the  latest  and  subtlest  sophist  says 
they  mean.  To  admit  that  it  is  declared  in  God's 
Word  and  is  true,  that  A.  D.  30-60  "  the  world  by 
wisdom  knew  not  God,"  and  yet  contend  that  this 
agrees  with  the  opinion  that  the  metaphysicians 
from  Pythagoras  to  Sir  W.  Hamilton  are  the  neces- 
sary supports  of  Christian  belief,  is  as  "  rationalistic  " 
(and  irrational)  as  the  conclusions  of  any  German 
mysticist. 

Nor  is  this  less  true  if  it  be  argued,  that  while  men 
should  believe  the  Divine  Word  directly,  still  meta- 
physics must  be  used  to  restore  this  faith  when  it  is, 
as  now,  impaired  in  any  way  in  men  or  societies. 
The  evil  began  with  deviating  from  simple  reception 
of  truth  from  God  into  abstract  speculation.  Why 
then  should  we  seek  to  correct  it  by  more  of  these 
speculations?  Is  not  this  merely  to  continue  in  the 
wrong  direction  of  intellectual  pride,  instead  of 
leaving  that  entirely  and  returning  to  obedient  hu- 
mility toward  God?  Otherwise,  why  will  we  not 
have  again  only  that  uncertain  and  unsatisfactory 
result  of  human  argument,  which  has  already  led  us 
away  from  the  authority  of  God's  Word  ?  Shall  we 
set  the  rock  upon  the  quicksand  ?  Can  the  stream 
of  faith,  then,  rise  higher  than  its  fountain  of  human 
reasoning? 

Without  doubt,  puzzling  questions  can  be  raised 
about  this.  Among  such,  it  may  be  said  that  if  we 
exclude   reason    from    religion,    we    leave    men    no 


298  THE   REIGN   OP   GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

chance  to  escape  from  religious  error  maintained  by 
authority.  And  so,  on  the  other  hand,  that  God  has 
made  men  to  believe  intelligentl}^  and  thus  b}^ 
reason  to  "  prove  all  things  "  offered  to  their  faith, 
so  that  they  may  "  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.'' 
This  last  is  true  as  a  part  of  that  Divine  Word.  But 
then,  to  say  nothing  of  other  sentences  of  Holy  Writ 
already  before  us,  its  real  sense  must  be  according  to 
the  whole  tenor  of  that  Word,  and  cannot  be  against 
that,  to  the  destruction  of  all  faith.  Nor  is  it  con- 
trary to  this  other  truth — that  plain  and  simple 
people  can  believe  the  Word  of  Grod  intelligently^ 
and  are  more  likely  to  do  so  than  the  ambitiously 
intellectual. 

We  are  to  use  our  truth-loving  good  sense  to 
ascertain  how  God  has  given  us  His  Word  ;  and  then 
we  are  to  take  that  Word  in  its  plain  meaning  and 
believe  it.  Simple  love  of  truth  will  find  no  great 
difficulty  in  this,  even  if  enticed  away  from  it  on  the 
one  side  by  any  supposed  authority  which  contends, 
in  spite  of  history  and  common  sense,  that  the 
words  mean  their  opposites  and  always  did  ;  or,  on 
the  other  side,  by  another  departure  from  the  plain 
meaning,  upon  the  pretence  that  our  reason  does  not 
accord  with  that  meaning.  Obedient  and  reverent 
faith  may  sometimes  have  to  say,  "  I  do  not  under- 
stand," but  it  will  never  say,  "  I  will  not  believe." 

Suppose,  however,  that  there  are  a  few  foolishly 
argumentative  men,  who  have  indulged  in  this  intel- 
lectual dissipation  until  they  have  become  such 
spiritual   weaklings   as   to    be   incapable    of   plain ^ 


METAPHYSICS.  299 


rational  faith,  until  the}'  are  first  dosed  with  the 
poisonous  drugs  of  religious  metaphysics.  Must 
these  be  forced  upon  those  Avho  are  wholesome  and 
hearty  of  soul  enough  to  believe  the  Word  of  God 
with  simplicity  ?  Yet  this  is  just  what  our  modern 
"  aids  to  faith  "  do.  I  see  in  none  of  them  a  warn- 
ing to  the  morbid  doubter  that  his  want  of  faith  is 
mental  infirmity,  nor  any  assurance  to  those  of  their 
readers  who  believe  (and  who  are  likely  to  be  much 
the  more  in  number)  that  their  faith,  which  did  not 
begin  in  metaphysics,  is  the  healthy  and  vigorous 
action  of  man's  soul.  On  the  contrary,  the  doubter  is 
probably  flattered  in  his  foolish  self-reliance  by  the 
very  means  used  to  induce  him  to  believe  ;  while  the 
others  are  confused  and  weakened  in  their  immediate 
faith  by  the  writer's  argument  grounding  it  upon 
metaphj'sics.  Therefore,  those  strong  and  clear 
words  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  prophet-apostle 
include  this  in  their  censure  of  the  blindness  of"  the 
wise  and  prudent." 


300  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 


APPENDIX    B. 

THE  METHOD  AND  RULES  BY  WHICH    THIS    EXAMINATION 
OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE    HAS    BEEN    MADE. 

1.  r  I  ^O  note  all  distinct  mentions  of  (a)  Creation, 
JL  (&)  Providence  (meaning  by  this  the  usual 
and  uniform  movements  and  successions  in  what  we 
call  "Nature,"  including  life,  whether  human, 
animal  or  vegetable),  (c)  Miracles  (i.  e.  all  things  not 
occurring  in  Providence  as  above,  but  striking  the 
mind  as  6'?/j;er-natural.  This  must  include  all  fore- 
knowledge and  prophecies  of  events  when  not 
derived  from  calculation  or  from  observation  of  the 
past,  as  also  all  about  angels  and  evil  spirits,  and 
t3very thing  communicated  from  God  in  word  or 
vision  to  men,  or  to  anj^  one  man,  with  the  visions 
themselves:  also  all  about  the  fall  and  redemption  of 
mankind,  heaven,  hell,  and  the  eternal  life  to  como.) 
(d)  Prayer,  as  followed,  or  promised  to  be  followed, 
by  the  obtaining  of  what  a  man  has  thus  asked  of 
Ood. 

2.  To  note  all  plain,  incidental  mentions  of  or  aUu- 
sions  to  the  above  i:>articulars.  Otherwise,  we  might 
miss  seeing  the  most  surprising  and  convincing  foot- 
prints of  truth  in  such  fresh  paths,  not  yet  beaten 
into  iron  hardness  hy  the  tread  of  controversy. 

3.  In  case  of  doubt  as  to  whether  passages  fairly 
belong  to  either  of  the  above  classes,  rather  to  omit 
them,  as  they  may  describe  a  merely  human  act. 


HOW  THIS  EXAMINATION   HAS  BEEN   MADE.  301 

4.  If  it  be  only  doubtful  to  lohich  of  two  of  these 
classes  they  may  belong,  to  refer  them  to  both  such, 
but  count  them  only  once  in  the  aggregate. 

5.  To  note  the  number  of  them  under  each  head. 
This,  of  course,  is  not  of  much  force  by  itself,  but  is 
suggestive  and  worthy  of  candid  thought  in  our 
final  conclusions. 

6.  Especially  to  distinguish  and  examine  any  pas- 
sages which  may  have  been  thought  to  mean  "  laws 
of  Nature  "  or  the  like,  or  which  have  seemed  to  me 
of  like  force  with  such  passages  cited  by  others. 

7.  To  study  how  far  these  last  are  or  are  not  evi- 
dently figures  of  speech. 

8.  Also  to  note  especially  such  as  mention  what 
we  commonly  call  "natural  events,"  as  done  directly 
b}'  Divine  power  and  will. 

9.  To  study  whether  f/i^se  can  be  considered  figures 
of  speech  ;  to  compare  them  as  such  with  the  last- 
mentioned  class  (see  6),  as  to  (a)  their  accord  in 
literal  or  in  figurative  sense  with  other  Scripture,  or 
(6)  with  our  usual  understanding  of  language  and 
our  best  reason,  or  (c)  as  to  the  comparative  fre- 
quency or  number  of  them. 

10.  To  observe  as  to  any  distinction  made  in  Holy 
Scripture  between  Creation  and  subsequent  acts  of 
Divine  power. 

11.  To  observe  whether  miracles  are  ever  noted  in 
Holy  Writ  as  interpositions  in  "laws  of, Nature,"  or 
an3^thing  of  the  kind. 

12.  To  notice  whether  or  how  the  miracles  are 
there  distinguished  from  Providence. 

26 


303       the;  reign  of  god  not  "the  reign  of  law." 

13.  To  examine  as  to  bow  we  are  to  consider  the 
written  Word,  as  related  in  its  construction  to  the 
limits  of  human  understanding  (not  merely  of  in- 
ferior minds,  but  as  well  of  the  greatest  intellects) ; 
whether,  e.  g.,  what  we  may  be  disposed  to  construe 
in  the  sense  of"  laws  of  Nature  ''  is  not  expressed  as 
it  is  only  in  gracious  accommodation  to  our  imperfect 
minds,  while  that  which  tells  of  incessant  and  imme- 
diate Divine  will  and  power  is  the  absolute  fact. 

14.  Thus  also  to  carefully  observe  every  passage  of 
Holy  Writ  w^hich  compares  our  knowledge  as  re- 
ceived by  a  "  Word  of  God  "  with  that  which  comes 
to  us  by  our  perception  of  the  works  of  God  and  our 
own  intellectual  processes.  vSuch  passages  will  be 
found  mainly  of  the  following  kinds :  1st,  such  as 
relate  that  God  spoke  to  men  with  an  audible  voice  ; 
2d,  such  as  compare  the  "wisdom  from  above  "  with 
"  man's  wisdom  ";  and  3d,  such  as  distinguish  be- 
tween *'  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and  any  other 
saying. 

15.  To  examine  whether  there  be  in  God's  Word 
any  such  form  of  speech,  or  any  equivalent,  or  even 
traces,  of  the  language  commonlj^  used  by  us  about 
*•  Nature  "  and  "■  laws." 

Certainly,  if  there  be  none  such,  it  should  go  far 
with  a  candid  Christian  to  dismiss  those  notions. 
Holy  Scripture  was  indeed  not  meant  to  teach  any 
"  science,"  but  it  certainly  does  not  contradict  any 
truth.  And  any  real  truth,  discovered  b}^  men  after 
the  Word  of  God  came  to  them,  would  not  contradict 
the  simple  sense  of  that  Word.     Such    truth   as  a 


HOW  THIS  EXAMINATION  HAS  BEEN  MADE. 


"reign  of  law,"  if  truth  it  be,  belofiging  to  religion, 
would  be  found  plainly  enfolded  in  the  Book  of  God, 
and  readily  i</i-folded  from  it. 

If  any  one  insist  that  it  is  the  passages  which 
declare  the  immediate  power  of  God  (see  "8."  as 
above)  that  are  figurative,  and  those  which  are 
alleged  as  mentioning  a  *' reign  of  law  "  (see  "  6.") 
that  are  literal,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  decide  this, 
as  searching  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  learn  their 
meaning,  and  not  to  argue  for  opinions  already 
formed.  It  is  certainly  a  use  of  figurative  language 
in  the  one  case  or  the  other.  Now  when  God  uses 
the  language  of  men  to  speak  to  them,  figures  are 
used,  not  to  conceal  truth,  but  to  exhibit  it  to  them. 
We  may  be  sure  the  figures  are  not  used  instead  of 
the  most  literal  words  unless  either  human  speech  is 
unequal  to  the  Divine  mysteries  taught,  or  bj^  way  of 
eloquence  and  poetr}^  to  stir  our  spiritual  dullness 
and  give  us  a  better  vision  of  the  glory  and  beauty  of 
heavenly  things.  Let  us  try  this  question  by  such 
rules  of  interpretation  as  follow  from  these  principles. 
It  is  dangerous  to  truth  to  call  any  such  a  figure 
when  it  may  be  literal,  for  then  we  might  destroy 
the  meaning  of  all  Scripture  and  all  real  faith  in  any 
Word  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  a  true  rule,  established 
by  consent  of  the  wisest  scholars,  that  the  lit«ral 
meaning  is  to  be  preferred  whenever  it  would  be 
the  understanding  of  the  words  without  explanation, 
unless  special  proof  of  the  contrary  can  be  shown. 

It  is  as  natural   to   understand   some  expressions 
figuratively  as  others  literally.     Thus,  if  I  heard  a 


304  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

person  say,  "  I  am  tbe  door,"  "I  am  the  vine,"  it 
would  be  the  natural  thing  for  us  to  understand  him 
to  mean,  "I  am  as  a  door,"  &c.,  and  it  would  seem 
strange  to  us  to  have  it  said  that  this  meant  that  he 
was  such  a  part  of  a  house,  or  a  climbing  plant. 
Figurative  language,  as  such,  is  as  natural  and  as 
little  likely  to  be  mistaken  in  its  true  place  as  the 
literal.  Yet,  when  words  are  used  which  arc  not 
upon  their  face  and  in  their  first  impression  figur- 
ative, they  are  probably  literal.  Another  such  rule 
is  that  the  literal  language  is  more  frequently  used 
than  any  given  figure.  Another,  that  figures  are  not 
BO  likely  to  be  used  in  prose  and  precept  as  in  poetry 
or  eloquence,  or  to  appeal  to  our  sentiments. 

There  are  two  classes  of  sentences  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, of  which  the  one  literally  taken  declares  that 
Grod  does  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  personally, 
directly  and  incessantly,  by  immediate  will  and 
power,  while  the  other  is  quoted  to  show  that  this  is 
not  so,  but  that  at  Creation  He  set  up  "laws"  and 
'*  forces  "  which  continue  that  will  which  He  had  in 
the  beginning,  while  He  onl}^  intervenes  in  person 
with  miracles.  If  these  passages  are  rightly  cited  to 
that  effect,  then  those  of  the  former  class  are  all  fig- 
urative ;  but  if  they  are  literally  true,  then  the  other* 
are  figurative  expressions. 

Observe  then  that  according  to  the  rules  already 
given,  it  is  the  first  class  which  are  (1.)  much  the 
more  numerous,  (2.)  intelligible  at  once  in  literal 
meaning,  and  naturally  so  understood  by  all  men  at 
first,  and  (3.)  used  in  plain  prose  of  precept   and 


HOW  THIS  EXAMINATION   HAS  BEEN  MADE.  305 

example;  while  the  others  are  (1.)  but  very  few  in 
all,  (2.)  figurative  any  way  even  when  cited  to  prove 
*'  natural  law,"  and  (3.)  occur  only  in  the  poetical 
and  rhetorical  Scriptures.  When  we  add  that  the 
former  are  used  by  our  Lord  the  light  of  the  world, 
to  teach  us  how  to  behold  God  and  understand  His 
works,  and  the  others  are  not  in  the  New  Testament 
at  all,  there  seems  to  remain  no  candid  doubt  how 
we  shall  decide  this  question.  ' 


306        THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THK  REIGN  OP  LAW. 


APPENDIX    C. 

CRITICAL  DISCUSSION  OF  EP.  TO  THE  ROMANS,  CHAP.  I.   1, 
TO    III.  10,  AND  1  EP.  TO  COR.  CHAPS.  I.  AND  II. 

Neither  of  the  two  passages  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles 
here  discussed  together  can  be  thoroughly  examined 
without  the  other.  I  shjill  begin  with  that  from  the 
1  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  not  only  because  it  is 
earlier  in  date  of  writing,  but  because  there  is  a  pro- 
found connection  of  them  in  this  order  and  in  the 
occasions  of  their  writing  as  touching  the  very 
questions  now  before  us. 

When  St.  Paul  came  first  to  Corinth  and  founded 
that  church,  he  came  direct  from  Athens.  There  he 
had  just  had  his  famous  encounter  with  the  Greek 
philosophers.  It  so  happened  that  it  was  some  of  the 
Epicureans  and  Stoics  who  made  the  formal  chal- 
lenge to  the  Apostle  to  make  a  public  exposition  of 
his  doctrine  upon  Mars  Hill.  None  the  less  must 
we  suppose  that  all  the  philosophies  were  repre- 
sented among  his  auditors  there,  and  brought  to  his 
notice,  even  if  never  before,  in  the  private  discus- 
sions which  followed  thereupon. 

Thence,  as  wo  have  seen,  and  with  his  thoughts 
full  of  what  the  intellectual  leaders  of  all  the  (rreeks 
held  for  aofia — wisdom — the  greatest  things  that 
men  had  ever  thought  out,  or  others  could  learn  from 
these  thinkers,  he  went  straight,  but  a  day  or  two's 
journey,  to  another  city  of  Greece.     There  he  stayed 


CRITICAL  DISCUSSION.  307 

long,  and  gathered  a  church  which  was  remarkable 
in  several  respects,  immortally  so  as  having  ad- 
dressed to  it  two  of  the  chief  inspired  Epistles. 
Corinth  was  not,  like  Athens,  the  incomparable 
centre  of  art  and  thought.  It  was  rather  busy  and 
rich,  and  the  centre  of  the  Roman  government  of 
Greece.  But  still  it  was  altogether  a  Greek  city, 
penetrated  by  the  same  subtle  and  ambitious  specu- 
lations which  converged  from  all  the  Hellenic  people 
upon  Athens,  and  radiated  again  thence  through 
them  all. 

At  Corinth,  unlike  some  other  Greek  towns,  the 
Christians  were  not  made  up  mostly  from  Jewish 
families  living  there,  but  almost  entirely  of  real 
Gentile  Greeks.  So  these  Epistles  are  not  occupied 
with  correcting  the  mistakes  of  Israelites  about  the 
Messiah  and  the  Law,  but  with  heathen  vices  and 
intellectual  vanity,  to  which  they  were  most  prone. 
This  last  had  been  the  chief  cause  of  the  parties  and 
schisms  in  the  Church  of  Corinth  which  was  the  first 
occasion  of  the  First  Epistle.  What  St.  Paul  says  of 
it  we  are  now  about  to  study  with  reference  to  some 
questions  of  our  day. 

There  are  certain  expressions  in  this  Epistle  which 
had  a  definite  meaning,  and  contained  allusions 
which  to  us  and  in  our  translation  do  not  appear 
upon  the  face  of  the  words.  Such  are  ffo(poq,  the 
philosopher  or  sage,  and  ao(pia^  philosophy,  as  if  the 
reasonings  of  the  various  sects  of  philosophers  were 
the  chief,  if  not  the  only  true,  wisdom.  Almost  cer- 
tainly,   these    Greek    words   were   fiimiliar   in    this 


308  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF  LAW. 

sense  to  St.  Paul  from  his  earliest  studies.  Without 
doubt,  they  were  thus  well  known  to  him  after  his 
visit  to  Athens  and  his  long  residence  in  Corinth. 
And  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians  afterwards,  he 
would  have  known  that  they  would  so  understand 
his  use  of  the  terms.  All  this  philosophy  of  its 
various  kinds,  professed  above  all  things  to  enlighten 
people  with  true  thoughts  of  religion.  Of  this  he 
takes  notice  at  once.  This  would  make  it  very  in- 
teresting, were  what  he  says  only  the  judgment  of 
that  thoughtful  Christian,  that  very  wise  and  able 
preacher  and  prelate  of  the  Church.  But  even  this 
value  of  the  passage  is  lost  in  its  importance  as  what 
he  wrote  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  as  the  Word  of 
God  to  all  lands  and  ages. 

He  comes  to  this  matter  at  once  in  the  outset  of 
the  Epistle  as  soon  as,  after  his  loving  greeting,  he 
begins  to  speak  of  that  "  preaching  "  (or  proclaiming) 
of  our  Lord's  Gospel,  to  which  all  his  life  and  labor 
was  given.  "  For  Christ  sent  me,  not  to  baptize,  but 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  with  philosophy  of  words, 
lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  of  none  effect. 
[The  two  things  have  no  accord  :  this  divine  mes- 
sage of  pardon  by  the  oblation  of  Jesus  Christ  upon 
the  cross,  and  the  ambitious  and  selt-confident  specu- 
lations of  all  your  Greek  philosophers,  which,  so  far 
from  helping,  would  hide  that  truth  from  my 
hearers.]  For  the  preaching  of  the  Cross  [the  pro- 
clamation we  make  in  our  Lord's  name  of  His  djnng 
to  save  sinners]  is  to  them  that  perish  foolishness 
[seems  to   those  who  are  fond  of  these  philosophies. 


CUITICAL  DISCUSSION.  309 


quite  opposed  to  them,  and  therefore  ti  dull  super- 
stition which  they  are  too  wise  to  believe  in,  and  so 
the}^  lose  the  divine  and  only  salvation],  but  unto  us 
which  are  saved  [who  abandon  all  such  vain 
attempts  to  invent  religious  truth,  and  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ]  it  is  the  power  of  God.  For  it  is 
written,  [as  it  was  foretold  even  by  the  prophets 
before  our  Lord],  '  I  will  destroy  the  philosophy  of 
the  sages,  and  confound  the  intelligence  of  the  intel- 
lectual*'. Where  is  the  philosopher?  where  is  the 
writer?  where  is  the  disputant  of  this  world  ?  Hath 
not  God  convicted  of  foll}^  the  philosophy  of  this 
world?  For  after  that  in  the  wisdom  of  God  [His 
eternal  power  and  love  mastering  all  things,  even  the 
perverse  wills  of  men]  the  world  by  its  [pretended] 
wisdom  [or  philosophy]  knew  not  God,  it  pleased 
God  by  [what  this  vain  and  presumptuous  philo- 
sophy called]  the  foolishness  of  His  proclamation  of 
grace,  to  save  some  who  were  really  wise  enough  to 
believe  and  gratefully  accept  it." 

This  translation  presents  the  words  to  us  simply 
as  they  must  have  been  understood  by  the  Christians 
of  Corinth.  It  is,  therefore,  just  what  we  want  now, 
that  we  may  decide  whether  it  is  true,  as  maintained 
by  so  many  Christian  scholars,  that  we  ought  to 
understand  Christian  doctrine  according  to  Plato's  or 
Aristotle's  philosophy.  We  see  that  just  the  reverse 
is  true — that  we  are  not  encouraged,  that  we  are  not 
permitted,  that  we  are  even  strictly  forbidden  to  do 
this. 

Within    the   next   year,  St.  Paul  visited  Corinth 


310        THE  REIGN   OF  OOD  NOT  "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW.' 


again,  and  while  there  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  W©  have  every  reason  to  think  that  the 
Church  at  the  capital  of  the  world  was  then  one  of 
the  most  intelligent  of  the  Christian  societies. 
While  some  of  its  members  may  have  been  of  the 
Israelites  residing  in  Rome,  they  are  all  addressed  in 
the  Greek  language,  and  as  if  they  were  "  Greeks.'* 
There  are  many  proofs  that  Greek  was  the  language 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  Apostles'  days,  and  for 
some  time  after.  So  these  Roman  Christians,*  being 
in  the  main  Greeks,  some  by  birth  and  almost  all  by 
language  and  education,  we  shall  best  understand  St. 
Paul,  in  an  epistle  to  them,  as  using  the  words  of 
their  language  in  the  sense  most  familiar  to  them  as 
such. 

It  is  a  sort  of  continuation  of  his  counsels  to  the 
Church  in  Corinth  ;  his  mind  filled  again,  by  re- 
visiting that  city  and  people,  with  those  deep 
thoughts  of  the  dangers  of  Greek  philosophy  to  wise 
faith  and  religion.  But  he  now  proceeds  to  declare 
to  the  Greeks  at  Rome  how  the  great  salvation  of 
Christ  Jesus  was  for  all  men  alike — Jews  or  Greeks, 
under  the  shadow  of  the  imperial  palace  or  within  it, 
or  in  the  most  distant  provincial  village,  brought  up 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  or  knowing  until  then  only  the 
religion  of  idols  or  of  vague  philosophy. 

Thus,  after  noble  and  beautiful  salutations,  he 
enters  upon  that  subject  at  once,  telling  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome  that  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  proclaim  the 
great  Gospel  among  them  also — to  Greeks  as  well  as 
barbarous    people — to    the    philosophical    (<ro^oi<?) 


CRITICAL  DISCUSSION.  311 

as  well  as  to  the  unintelligent  (dvorjroi^).  That 
Gospel  is  the  Divine  power  for  Greek  as  well  as  Jew. 
Then  he  proceeds  to  show  how  all  mankind,  though 
tirst  innocent  and  having  pure  knowledge  of  God, 
fell  into  sin  and  lost  the  truth  of  religion ;  which 
loss,  so  much  repaired  among  the  Israelites  by  the 
later  Word  of  God  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  had 
no  such  checks  for  its  descending  corruption  among 
other  nations.  Yet  this  does  not  acquit  them  in  the 
judgment  of  God. 

As  he  proceeds  to  say  (Rom.  i.  19,  &c.),  "Because 
«ome  knowledge  of  God  is  manifest  in  them,  for  God 
hath  shewed  it  unto  them.  For  ever  since  the 
creation  of  the  world,  and  that  pure  knowledge  of 
Himself  that  He  first  gave  to  man  when  He  made 
him  in  His  own  image,  those  invisible  things  of 
His,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Divinity,  are  clearly 
seen,  being  perceived  (and  recalled  to  thought) 
through  the  things  that  were  made;  so  that  they 
are  not  excused  by  their  false  religion  from  guilt 
toward  Him.  Because  that  when  they  knew  God 
(knew  Him  at  first  fully,  and  even  in  the  downward 
j)rogress  of  losing  this  knowledge  by  disobedience, 
knew  Him  still  in  even  the  most  corrupt  religion  by 
the  thought  of  superhuman  unseen  power  which 
commanded  them  to  be  better  and  purer  than  they 
chose  to  be)  they  glorified  Him  not  as  God  (with 
devout  love),  neither  were  thankful,  but  became  per- 
verse in  their  reasonings,  and  their  foolish  heart  was 
darkened.  Saying  that  they  were  philosophic  (that 
is,  even    the    more   intellectual,  to    whom    the    rest 


312  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP   LAW.' 


looked  up)  they  became  fools,  and  changed  the  glory 
of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  image  like  to  cor- 
ruptible man  (this  was  the  actual. vvorship  of  even 
Socrates  and  Plato),  and  to  birds  and  four-footed 
beasts  and  creeping  things. 

"  Wherefore  God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness, 
<&c.,  (to  which  sensual  degradation  these  same  philo- 
sophers seem  to  have  been  as  indifferent  as  other 
people,  assuming  it  to  be  natural  and  necessary-),  who 
changed  the  truth  of  God  (that  most  exalted  thought 
oi  religion)  into  a  lie,  and  worshipped  and  adored  the 
Creation  (-Nature,'  &c.)  instead  of  the  Creator,  Who 
is  blessed  forever,  Amen.  For  this  cause  (and  as  the 
evil  tendency  of  all  neglect  of  Him)  God  gave  them 
up  to  vile  affections,  &c.  (worse  and  more  unnatural 
abuses  of  their  ph^^sical  life,  in  which  the  most  rich 
and  refined — the  lovers  of  art  and  authors  of  inge- 
nious philosophy — were  as  much  implicated  as  the 
ignorant  and  superstitious).  And  even  as  thc}^  gave 
no  thought  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge  (to 
have  a  religion  in  which  they  thought  oi'llim  as  to 
be  supremely  loved  in  holy  life),  God  gave  them  over 
to  a  debased  mind,  to  do  things  altogether  unworthy 
of  the  life  of  man,  being  filled,"  &c.  (Here  follow 
verses  29-32,  that  fearful  description  of  the  immoral 
life  oi' all  the  Gentile  people,  in  which  those  especially 
^'professing  themselves  to  be  wise,"  the  Greek  philo- 
sophers and  their  students,  were  among  the  most 
flagrant  examples  and  those  best  known  to  St.  Paul 
and  his  readers.) 

But  now  he  turns  to  the  other  class  of  men,  as  if 


CRITICAL   DISCUSSION.  813 

apostrophizing  one  of  his  Roman  readers  who  had 
not  been  brought  up  in  that  great  estrangement 
from  G-od  of  the  religion  of  idolatry,  but  in  the  light 
of  Moses'  law,  and  who  had  listened  with  approval 
to  his  account  of  the  most  of  mankind,  3'et  was  him- 
self worldly  and  impenitent  (II.  1,  &c.): — **  Therefore 
thou  art  inexcusable,  O  man  !  whosoever  thou  art  that 
judgest ;  for  wherein  thou  judgest  another,  thou  con- 
demnest  thyself.  But  we  are  sure  that  the  judgment 
of  God  is  according  to  truth  against  them  which 
C'Ommit  such  things;  .  .  .  (6-16)  who  will  render  to 
every  man  according  to  his  deeds.  To  them  who  by 
patient  continuance  in  well-doing  seek  for  glory  and 
honor  and  immortality — eternal  life;  but  unto  them 
that  are  contentious  and  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  wrath — trib- 
ulation and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that 
doeth  evil ;  of  the  Jew  (like  you)  first,  and  also  of 
the  Gentile — for  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with 
<jrod — but  glory,  honor  and  peace  to  every  man  that 
worketh  good  ;  to  the  Jew  first,  (for  he  has  had  in 
the  Old  Testament  earlier  advantages  for  this)  and 
iilso  to  the  Greek  (if  he  its  penitent  and  pious),  for 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God. 

"For  as  many  as  have  sinned  wnthout  (a  written) 
law  (literally  •'  lawlessl}^  ")  shall  perish  without  law  ; 
and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  (with  knowledge 
of)  the  law  (written)  shall  be  judged  by  that  law. 
For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God, 
but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified.  For  when 
(if,  or  if  ever)  the  (heathen)  nations,  (not  "  Gen- 
27 


314  THE    REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

tiles,"  as  individuals),  which  have  not  the  hiw  (writ- 
ten), do  by  nature  (no  written  Word  of  God  renew- 
ing for  them  the  law  of  primitive  religion)  the  very 
things  contained  in  that  law,  these  having  not  that 
law.  are  a  law  unto  themselves  (that  is,  the  original 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  man's  duty  stills  remains 
among  them  in  a  partial  and  indefinite  way,  in 
traditions  and  religious  practice,  and  their  political 
law  as  derived  from  these),  who  show  (by  these 
remains  of  virtue)  the  work  of  the  law  (the  actual 
power  of  God's  will  as  the  law  for  men)  written  in 
their  hearts  (living  in  their  very  thoughts),  their 
self-judgment  also  bearing  witness  in  the  day  when 
God  shall  judge  the  w^orld,  and  their  thoughts  then 
among  themselves  accusing  or  else  excusing  one 
another." 

It  thus  appears  that  this  is  not  said  of  all  men 
alike  as  knowing  merely  from  their  own  thoughts 
all  that  they  ought  to  do.  What  is  said  is  expressly 
limited  to  the  heathen  nations,  and  as  w^hat  will  be 
disclosed  by  his  thoughts  and  memory  to  each  man 
of  them  in  the  day  of  Judgment.  Nov  is  this  at  all 
according  to  the  notion  of  a  -^conscience''  in  each 
man's  soul  telling  him  infallibly  what  he  ought  to 
do ;  a  notion  found  not  at  all  in  God's  Word,  but 
suggested  in  some  of  the  old  heathen  philosophies 
and  adopted  full}^  in  modern  Christian  philosophy. 

He  then  returns  directly  to  the  worldly  Israelite 
whom  he  was  before  convicting  of  his  equal  need 
with  the  Pagans  of  salvation  through  the  Lamb  of 
God,  and  says,  (vv.  17,  18),  "  Behold  thou  art  called  a 


CRITICAL  DISCUSSION.  316 


Jew  and  re8test  in  the  law  and  makest  th}^  boast  of 
God,  and  knovvest  His  will  and  approvest  the  things 
that'are  more  excellent,  being  instructed  out  of  the 

law (v.   23).     Thou    that   makest   thy   boast 

of  the  law,  through  breaking  of  the  law  dishonorest 
thou  God?  ....  (vv.  25-27).  But  if  thou  be  a 
breaker  of  the  law  th}^  circumcision  is  made  uncir- 
cumcision.  Therefore,  if  the  uncircumcision  (should) 
keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law  (without  reading 
God's  will  in  His  Word,  actually  ^o  it;  while  thou 
rcadest  but  doest  it  not),  shall  not  his  uncircumcision 
be  counted  for  circumcision?  And  shall  not  uncir- 
cumcision, which  is  by  nature  (where  no  written 
Woi'd  of  God  renews  the  primitive  religion)  if  it 
fulfill  that  law,  judge  thee,  who  b}^  the  letter  and  cir- 
cumcision dost  transgress  the  law?  .  .  .  (Chap.  iii. 
1).  What  advantage  then  Aa^A  the  Jew?  and  what 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every  wa}', 
because  that  unto  them  z^Jere  committed  the  oracles  of 
God,  (the  later  words  of  God  repeating  His  will).  .  .  . 
(vv.  9,  10).  What  then  ?  Kvq  we  (Jews)  better 
(than  the  Gentiles)?  No,  in  no  wise:  for  we  have 
before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  they  are 
all  under  sin  :  As  it  is  wi'itten.  There  is  none  right- 
eous :  no,  not  one,"  etc. 

I  have  only  space  here  to  add  to  what  needs,  and 
I  hope  may  yet  receive  a  much  fuller  treatment, 
that  these  last  powerful  words  (as  in  substance  also 
those  of  Chap,  i.)  prove  that  those  of  Chap.  ii.  14, 
26  and  27,  can  onl}^  be  rightly  understood,  not  as 
affirming  that  any  Gentiles  did  in  fact  perform  God's 


316  THB  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  **  THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

will  ae  being  "a  law  unto  themselves";  but  that 
even  if  they  had,  it  would  have  been  as  they  knew  it 
by  traces  in  their  traditions  and  laws,  of  His  first 
Word  to  man. 


"THE  REIGN  OP   LAW."  317 


APPENDIX   D. 

EXTRACTS   FROM    A   REVIEW    IN    DETAIL    OP    A    BOOK 
ENTITLED    "  THE    REIGN    OF    LAW." 

(It  has  been  impracticable  to  find  room  here  for 
the  whole  of  this  review,  which  may  appear  at  length 
in  a  later  publication.) 

IT  was  a  great  task  which  the  author  set  himself, 
viz:  to  show  the  people  of  our  time  that 
''  Science  "  does  not  forbid  us  to  have  Christian  faith. 
It  would  not  be  fair  to  censure  any  one  merely  for 
imperfect  success  in  that  undertaking.  But  if  the 
real  result  were  upon  the  whole  to  obscure  the 
glorious  vision  of  God  in  all  things,  no  pains 
ehould  be  spared  to  expose  this.  The  more  the 
writer's  name  commanded  readers  and  their  ready 
assent,  the  more  the  book  was  commended  by  those 
whose  authority  would  carry  it,  and  confidence  in 
it,  into  the  multitude  of  docile  readers  whom  other- 
wise it  would  not  reach,  the  more  direct  and  com- 
plete should  this  criticism  be. 

The  book  is  much  more  easy  and  pleasant  reading 
than  some  others  upon  like  subjects.  This  is  no 
small  element  of  influence.  Some  things  are  finely 
said,  and  even  rise  to  eloquence  of  expression.  In 
^'illustrations"  of  the  argument,  entertaining  infor- 
mation is  sometimes  given,  and  questions  of  physical 
science  or  political  economy  argued  with  much  in- 


818         THE  llEIGN   OF   GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW.' 


genuity.  Bui  as  lllust ratio ns,  what  can  they  be  worth 
when  they  illustrate  nothing  true  ? 

Before  examining  the  booli  in  detail,  I  mention 
eome  cardinal  errors  that  spoil  it  all.  Ist.  An  in- 
correct and  ambiguous  use  of  the  terms  "  law," 
"  laws,"  &c.  2d.  An  assumption  that  all  which  can 
exist  or  be  an  object  of  thought,  is  either  "Matter  " 
or  "  Mind."  3d.  In  a  certain  accord  with  this,  the 
glorious  Person  of  God,  especial!}^  as  in  Himself  love^ 
and  to  be  lovedy  is  kept  out  of  sight.  4th.  Taking  no 
notice  of  the  way  in  which  God  has  placed  His 
Word  among  men.  5th.  The  author's  favorite  con- 
ception of  God  as  being  under  a  certain  necessity 
from  ''Law"  and  its  "Reign,"  and  as  in  all  that  Ho 
does  only  wisely  contriving  and  combining  results 
in  the  use  of  eternal  forces;  no  more  in  fact  than  an 
immeuse  man. 

The  author  of  "  The  Reign  of  Law,"  would 
probably  say  in  answer  to  criticism  under  the  3d 
and  4th  heads,  that  he  had  anticipated  it  in  his 
preface  to  the  first  edition,  postponing  a  chapter 
on  "Reign  of  Law  in  Christian  Theology"  be- 
cause he  "shrunk  from  entering  upon  questions  so 
profound,  of  such  critical  import,  and  so  connected 
v.'ith  religious  controversy."  Each  of  these  is  a 
reason  why  he  should  have  "  shrunk  from "  his 
present  argument,  which  by  its  religious  defects  is 
in  result  irreligious.  In  the  ])i'eface  to  the  fifth 
edition  ho  fiiiallj"  abandons  the  projected  chapter, 
and  admits  that  its  absence  is  a  veiy  serious  defect 
in  the  argument.  This  seems  almost  to  disarm 
censure  in  advance. 


"THE  REIGN   OF  LAW."  319 

But  it  is  the  readers,  the  ill  effect  upon  them,  and 
not  the  author,  who  are  most  to  be  considered.  JSot 
that  we  complain  of  the  want  of  this  other  "chapter," 
which  would  probably  have  been  as  erroneous  as  the 
rest.  The  actual  fatal  defect  is  that  in  an  attempted 
argument  for  Christian  faith,  which  we  do  have, 
these  and  other  faults  pervading  it  all,  put  it  among 
the  books  which  upon  the  whole  impair  faith. 

The  first  chapter  is  entitled  "Of  the  Supernatural." 
It  is  devoted  to  casting  out  this  word  from  use. 
The  argument,  which  is  somewhat  rambling  and 
confused,  is  founded  upon  the  mere  false  notion  of  a 
"  reign  of  law."  According  to  it  nothing  is  super- 
natural because  everything  is  "  natural."  This 
mighty  war,  as  between  words,  might  be  passed  over 
without  notice  were  that  all.  Though  indeed  if  this 
author  is  right,  we  must  recast  many  of  the  most 
valuable  writings  of  modern  times.  Were  it  upon 
the  verbal  question  only,  I  should  rathei*  agree  with 
M.  Guizot,  that  most  unprejudiced  and  profound 
thinker,  than  with  the  Duke  of  Argyll.  Let  any 
one  of  my  readers  attempt  to  correct  all  his  best 
reading  by  this  decision  of  the  latter  (p.  50.) :  '•  The 
truth  is  there  is  no  such  distinction  between  what 
wc  find  in  Nature  and  what  we  are  called  upon  to 
believe  in  religion,  as  that  which  men  pretend  to 
draw  between  the  Natural  and  Supernatural.  It  is 
a  distinction  purely  artificial,  arbitrary  and  unreal  ;  " 
and  he  will  be  surprised  at  the  result.  Gro,  reader, 
and  revise  by  this  canon  what  has  been  written  by 
the  wisest  of  men  concerning  faith  in  God,  and  see 


320  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

what  names  you  must  insult,  and  what  books  you 
must  mutilate  and  disfigure. 

But  indeed  it  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  words.  It 
is  a  precise  inversion  of  the  truth  of  religion.  For 
instance,  we  are  told  (p.  30.)  that  '*  we  must  remem- 
ber that  the  language  of  Scripture  nowhere  draws, 
or  seems  even  conscious  of  the  distinction  which 
modern  philosophy  draws  so  sharply  between  the 
Natural  and  the  Supernatural.  All  the  operations 
of  Nature  are  spoken  of  as  operations  of  the  Divine 
Mind."  Now  ^ve  have  just  (Chaps.  YIT.  and  YIII.) 
been  making  a  real  and  thorough  examination  of 
Holy  Writ.  And  we  have  found  that  it  "  nowhere 
seems  even  conscious"  of  "Nature"  or  "the  Natu- 
ral "  at  all.  We  might  rather  say  that  in  it  all 
things  are  described  as  Supernatural. 

In  truth  this  writer  is  wandering  in  a  **  vicious 
circle  ";  beginning  with  the  assumption  of  his  cher- 
ished notion  of  a  "reign  of  law,"  and  with  his 
inferences  from  it  proceeding  to  prove  what  he 
really  began  with.  His  own  personal  belief  in  God's 
Word  remains,  and  so  he  actually  proceeds  to  fortify 
his  arguments  by  classifying  under  this  "reign  of 
law  "  the  most  sublime  mysteries  of  Divine  Love  ; 
as  for  instance,  p.  51,  "The  Divine  Mission  of 
Christ,"  &c.,  and  p.  52,  '' '  It  behoved  Him,'  etc. 
Whatever  77iore  there  may  be  in  such  passages,"  &c. 
Wise  faith  is  shocked  at  this,  but  must  tr}'  to  excuse 
it  as  of  the  habits  of  a  false  theology. 

Yet  on  the  ver}^  same  page  he  fancies  himself 
looking  down   uj)on  "all   theologies"  from  a  higher 


"THE  RETGN   OF  LAW."  321 

point  of  view.  And  thus  he  di8COur8e8orthom:  "Per- 
haps it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  manifest 
decay  which  so  many  creeds  and  confessions  are 
now  suffering  arises  mainly  from  the  degree  in 
which  at  least  the  popular  expositions  of  them  dis- 
sociate the  doctrines  of  Christianity  from  the 
analogy  and  course  of  Nature.  There  is  no  such 
severance  in  Scripture,"  etc.,  etc. 

On  the  contrary  we  have  already  seen  that  Holy 
Scripture  knows  nothing  of  "Nature  "in  his  sense. 
But  what  does  he  mean  by  "  creeds "  and  their 
"decay"?  Is  he  speaking  (which  would  be  the  only 
accurate  use  of  the  term)  of  those  brief  statements  of 
"  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  "  Church  of  God 
1800  3'ears  ago,  and  professed  by  all  Christendom  in 
those  words  with  scarce  any  exception  for  at  least 
1500  years?  Docs  he  at  least  include  those  creeds, 
without  which  his  words  represent  nothing  worthy 
of  notice?  In  what  respect  are  these  creeds  now 
suffering  any  "manifest  decay"?  How  can  they, 
being  of  that  truth  which  can  never  grow  old  or 
pass  away,  as  will  this  visible  ^'  Nature"  ? 

If  he  means  that  men's  faith  in  the  Divine  truth 
decays  because  "popular  expositions"  of  it  do  not 
proceed  upon  his  method  of  referring  all  things  to. 
"  Nature  "  and  the  "  Eeign  of  Law,"  in  this  they 
follow  the  example  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  just  such 
"references  to  the  visible  world  around  us  in  teaching 
religion  as  the  Blessed  Scriptures,  and  above  all  a» 
Our  Most  Blessed  Lord's  example  suggests  to  us,  are 
quite  common  even  in  the  less  thoughtful  "  popular 


THE  KBIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 


expositions."  Tliere  is  still  a  great  deal  of  hearty 
faith  left,  and  it  is  found  most  among  those  who 
know  least  about  this  scientific  "Nature";  while  its 
dangerous  decay  is  to  be  seen  among  those  who 
give  most  attention  to  that,  and  those  who  an- 
most  influenced  by  their  ideas. 

"Chap.  II. — Law,  its  Definitions."  —  This  would 
seem  at  last  to  introduce  us  to  the  main  argument. 
Yet  It  opens  thus,  not  with  definitions,  but  with  a 
mere  assumption  of  the  very  thing  to  be  proved  r 
"The  Reign  of  Law— is  this  then  the  reign  under 
which  we  live  ?  Yes,  in  a  sense  it  is,  there  is  no  denying 
it,"  etc.,  etc.  But  we  are  told  next  that  '*  the  men  of 
Theology  "  (Christian  believers  ?  and  especially  God's 
own  ambassadors?)  find  something  in  it  not  favor- 
able to  what  they  believe  the  highest  truth.  "  They 
would  erect  a  feeble  barrier  b}-  defending  the  position 
that  Science  and  Religion  may  be  and  ought  to  be 
kept  entirely  separate,"  etc.  In  this  at  last  he 
notices  the  just  instinct  by  which  those  who  value 
and  are  in  a  measure  responsible  for  the  religious 
faith  of  their  countrymen,  perceive  in  this  notion  of 
the  "reign  of  law"  an  enemy  to  that  faith.  But 
even  when  they  ask  that  it  will  not  invade  the  truth 
which  is  in  their  special  charge,  he  has  no  sympathy 
with  them.  On  the  contrary  he  makes  merry  over 
their  anxieties,  and  predicts  their  failure  upon  the 
plausible  ground  that  every  truth  has  "  a  right  of 
way  "  in  every  other  region  of  Truth.  So  religious 
belief  must  be  made  to  accord  with  the  "science"  of 


"THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 


the  time.  '•  The  endeavor  to  reconcile  them  is  a 
necessity  of  the  mind.  We  are  right  in  thinking 
that  if  they  are  both  indeed  true,  they  can  be  recon- 
ciled," etc.  Not  so.  He  is  a  very  shallow  thinker 
who  does  not  know  that  all  *the  really  greatest 
truths  baffle  all  our  attempts  to  reconcile  them  ; 
which  reminds  us  that  God  can  tell  man  things  too 
great  for  his  comprehension. 

How  do  we  know  this  '*  Theology,"  as  the  Duke 
of  Argyll  is  pleased  to  name  the  Divine  truth  of 
religion  ?  By  verbal  communication  from  God.  Is 
it  then  too  much  to  ask  that  no  sort  or  amount  of 
such  inferior  knowledge  as  men  can  "  by  searching 
find  out,"  shall  be  allowed  to  qualify  or  interpret 
that  which  is  absolutely  true?  And  is  this  reconcil- 
ing to  be  all  in  that  direction  ?  Or  may  I  assert  this 
'*  blessed  right  of  way  "  of  my  heavenly  truth  of 
jeligion  to  enter  the  domain  of  "Science"  and 
dictate  a  change  in  some  of  its  results?  No  one 
proposes  that.  In  one  place  the  author  seems  to 
admit  that  this  must  be  allowed  with  the  other 
claim.  J3ut  when  you  look  carefully  at  his  sentence, 
there  is  no  such  right  allowed  to  the  truth  that 
^'omesfrotn  Heaven  ;  only  one  sort  of  human  discovery 
must  exchange  civilities  with  another.  Thus:  "It 
may  be  that  some  proud  generalization  of  the  schools 
is  having  its  falsehood  proved  by"  ( — what? — the 
most  august  and  perfect  Word  of  God?  No! — )  the 
violence  it  does  to  the  deepest  instincts  of  our  spirit- 
ual nature.  Now  we  do  not  obtain  these  "doctrines 
of  religion  "  from  any  man's  argument  of  what  are 


324  THE  REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT  "THE   REIGN   OP   LAW." 


our  "deepest  instincts,"  but  as  God  Himself  has 
taught  us. 

The  English  Professoi*  and  clergyman  of  whom  he 
speaks  (p.  60)  seems  to  have  been  a  much  wiser 
lover  of  the  trut^  than  his  censor.  Following  his 
science  in  its  conclusions  intellectually,  when  it  con- 
tradicted his  faith,  he  did  not  renounce  that  faith; 
but  knowing  it  was  fixed  upon  higher  grounds  of 
absolute  truth,  he  ascribed  the  contradiction  to  the 
limit  of  human  intelligence.  This  is  right.  A  scien- 
tific conclusion  which  is  against  the  Word  of  God  is 
simply  an  intellectual  illusion ;  harmless  if  so  under- 
stood, and  not  allowed  to  interfere  with  our  faith, 
even  perha])s  a  useful  mental  exercise,  an  enigma 
which  may  (or  may  not)  find  solution  in  the  other 
life  when  we  are  forever  in  the  presence  of  the  eter- 
nal truth  which  we  now  know  by  faith. 

(P.  63).  He  distinguishes  "  Law  "  in  five  different 
senses,  and  yet  throughout  the  whole  book  it  occurs 
incessantly  and  interchangeably  in  all  these  senses, 
and  without  any  suggestion  or  guide  to  the  reader 
as  to  which  he  means.  Nor  is  this  Proteus  content 
only  to  astonish  and  confuse  us  with  these  sudden 
changes  of  costume.  He  multiplies  them  b}'  varia- 
tions, as  sometimes  "Law"  or  "Laws";  as  "law" 
and  "laws";  as  "laws  of  Nature"  and  "Natural 
laws,"  etc.,  etc.  Indeed,  an  argument  which  marches 
with  such  an  imposing  display  of  abstract  terms 
with  capital  initials,  overawes  the  reader.  Thus 
these  431  pages,  among  every  few  words  of  which 
towor     "Law,"     "Nature,"      "Force,"      *' Matter," 


THE  REIGN   OF  LAW."  335 


^'  Mind,"  '*  Science,"  "  Personality,"  "  Power,"  "  Will," 
*'  Order,"  "  Adjustment,"  '*  Contrivance,"  "  Organiza- 
tion," &c.,  is  like  the  army  of  an  Indian  prince,  in 
which  the  huge  elephants  with  their  gorgeous  trap- 
pings seem  to  forbid  resistance  more  than  ten  thou- 
sands of  soldiery. 

This  rhetorical  artifice  is  certainly  not  favorable 
to  clearness  of  thought,  since  the  mind  is  kept  in 
doubt  as  to  whether  these  words  mean  facts,  abstrac- 
tions or  persons.  There  is  superadded  irreverence 
when  "  Mind,"  which  has  all  along  been  otherwise 
used,  suddenly  presents  itself  apparently  to  represent 
the  Most  Glorious  and  Blessed  One. 

As  for  his  five  "great,  leading  significations"  of 
tato  in  the  scientific  use,  the  division  is  highly  artifi- 
cial, and  throws  no  light  upon  the  main  question. 
The  whole  five  are  really  contained  so  far  as  that 
word  can  be  used  in  this  inexact  and  figurative 
sense,  (sec  Chap.  XVII.  of  "  the  Eeign  of  God," 
concerning  the  real  and  essential  meaning  of  law)  in 
the  first ;  that  is,  a  "  law  of  Nature  is  an  observed 
order  of  iacts."  (This  could  be  fully  shown,  did 
space  allow,  by  a  minute  examination  of  w^hat  he 
says  of*'  the  Law  of  Gravitation,  the  best  illustration 
of  what  law  is  and  what  it  is  not"). 

P.  69.  We  are  told  that  the  Law  of  Gravitation 
'' is  that  Force»\w hich  compels  those  movements,  etc.," 
and  that  '*  Force  is  the  root-idea  of  Law^  in  its  scien- 
tific sense."     In   fact   the  writer  doe.'<  in  this  same 

28 


32Q  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OF  LAW." 

obscure  and  obscuring  way  use  these  terms  Law  an4 
Force  interchangeably.  Why  then  does  he  not 
always,  or  even  ever,  express  his  doctrine  according 
to  its  "root-idea,"  and  call  it  the  "Reign  of  Force'"} 

P.  89.  He  goes  quite  out  of  his  way  to  rebuke 
any  who  are  so  theological  as  to  call  the  chief  scien- 
tific adversaries  of  religious  belief,  atheists.  He  seems 
rather  to  resent  such  an  intrusion  into  the  select 
company  in  which  he  and  others  converse  in  the 
"dry  light"  of  science,  into  which  none  of  the 
warmth  or  color  of  religious  faith  is  admitted.  Yet 
the  critic  of  Prof  Huxley,  in  the  instance  given,  did 
that  eminent  naturalist  and  elegant  writer  no  in- 
justice in  calling  what  he  said  ''an  honest  avowal  of 
atheism,"  even  if  he  was  not  conscious  of  it.  It  is 
fortunate  that  there  are  Christian  writers  who  see 
much  farther  into  these  things  than  the  Duke  of 
Argyll.  The  man  now  in  Christendom  who  con- 
fronts this  sentence  of  our  faith  (1  St.  John  v.  20) 
"  We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath 
given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  know  Him," 
wilh  dismissing  all  this  to  "  the  unknown  and  the 
unknowable,"  is  an  atheist,  even  though  he  rejects 
w4jat  he  derisively  calls  "  speculative  atheism." 

The  great  matter  is  practical  atheism.  It  is  much 
the  same  whether  a  man  says  that  he  can  prove  that 
there  is  no  such  person  as  the  one  absolute  and  most 
true  Person,  or  says  that  he  does  not  and  cannot 
know  that  there  is  such  a  Person.  This  latter  sort 
of  atheists  is  much  the  more  dangerous  in  our  time. 


"THE   KEIGN   OP  LAW."  337" 

It  includes  man}?  more  persons,  not  only  as  they 
thus  escape  the  "  popular  odium  "  of  which  the  Pro- 
fessor speaks,  but  because  it  suits  better  the  worldly 
and  self-sufficient  spirit  of  "  modern  thought." 
Therefore,  whoever  teaches  it  from  a  place  of  great 
influence  over  men's  opinions,  ought,  at  least,  to  be 
described  as  the  atheist  he  is;  not  to  punish  him 
with  "popular  odium,"  but  for  truth's  sake,  and  in 
loving  pit}^  for  his  darkened  and  imperilled  soul. 

Pp.  105-107.  The  author  notices  and  rather  makes 
merry  over  the  objection  to  his  argument  that  it  is 
"Anthropomorphism."  The  word  is  nothing,  be  it 
"  very  long  "  or  very  short.  But  the  objection  made, 
even  though  in  this  case  by  an  unbeliever  against  a 
Christian,  is  seriously  true.  It  is  humiliating  to 
notice  that  it  is  the  former  who  says  that  "  the  Uni- 
versal Mind  is  essentially  other  than  the  Human 
Mind,"  and  the  latter  who  (adding,  without  right 
or  reason,  his  own  gloss — •'  so  that  no  recognizable 
relations  can  exist  between  them  ")  replies,  "  Then 
that  Universal  Mind  is  to  us  as  if  it  were  not."  That 
indeed  would  triumphantly  justify  the  philosophers 
of"  the  unknowable."  It  would  also  deny  the  essen- 
tial omnipotence  of  the  Blessed  Eternal  One,  insisting 
that  He  cannot  make  a  creature  who  can  know  Him, 
unless  He  make  the  creature  every  way  His  counter- 
part ! 

The  author's  favorite  proposition,  served  up  to  us 
again  and  again  in  different  forms,  is,  as  on  p.  100, 
"  Every  law  of  Nature  is  liable  to  counteraction,  and 


328        THK   REIGN   OP   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

the  rule  is  that  laws  are  habitually  made  to  counter- 
act each  other."  Yet  afterwards  he  observes  with 
approval  the  actual  glimpse  which  some  students  of 
"Nature"  have  got  of  a  great  Divine  truth  which 
excludes  any  "  reign  of  law,"  and  says  (p.  122), 
"  Science,  &c.,  is  already  getting  something  like  a 
firm  hold  of  the  idea  that  all  kinds  of  force  are  but 
forms  or  manifestations  of  some  one  Central  Force," 
&c.  How  absurd  then  is  it  to  repeat  as  a  discovery 
and  demonstration  that  the  Great  God  is  playing  off 
against  one  another  a  yimt  7iiimber  of  forces  (which 
do  not  exist)  to  do  His  Will,  when  that  very 
Will  is  the  one  only  Force  that  does  exist.  Yet  only 
three  pages  after  his  own  virtual  admission  of  the 
error,  he  repeats  it  (p.  125)  in  this  even  exaggerated 
form — "What  we  call  natural  consequence  is  always 
the  conjoint  effect  of  an  infinite  number  of  elementary 
forces,"  &e. 

"  Chap.  III. — Contrivance  a  necessity  arising  out 
of  the  Eeign  of  Law,"  &c. 

The  whole  force  of  this  chapter  for  the  argument 
is  in  the  first  two  or  three  pages.  The  rest  of  it 
about  the  flight  of  birds  might  or  might  not  be  true 
and  useful  without  any  effect  upon  the  question  of  a 
"  reign  of  law."  Yet  any  one  following  the  book  and 
this  review  of  it  with  that  pure  and  holy  fear  of  God,, 
the  beginning  of  wisdom  (especially  in  all  knowledge 
of  Mim),  and  still  having  any  doubt  about  that 
question,  can  see  what  is  here  rightly  deduced  from 
a   "reign   of  law":  "the   necessity   of  contrivance."' 


THE   REIGN   OP   LAW. 


For  whom  ?  For  man  in  his  little  inventions  and 
uses  of  what  God  is  perpetually  doing?  No,  but  for 
**  the  Will  which  works  in  Nature,"  by  which  he 
means  God  Almighty — the  Absolute  One.  The 
whole  attempted  argument  is,  that  because  we  all  see 
that  men  must  contrive,  therefore  (p.  127)  "Nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that  the  whole  order  of  Nature 
is  one  vast  system  of  contrivance." 

In  simple  truth,  what  in  His  works  seems  like  our 
contrivance  cannot  be  such,  because  He  is  God  and 
not  a  creature.  We  contrive  bj^  studying  and 
making  use  of  certain  objects  and  movements  (or 
forces,  if  any  one  prefer  that  word)  around  us,  which 
are  what  they  are  not  at  all  by  our  will  or  action, 
but  by  acting  Will  altogether  outside  of  and  above 
VLB.  Compare  this  with  the  acts  of  Him  who  makes 
and  moves  all  at  once  by  His  will,  which  will  is  the 
one  and  only  real  force,  while  the  "  many  forces  " 
are  only  various  instances  of  that  as  it  appears  to  us. 

As  for  the  attempted  argument  (p.  127,  &c.)  from 
a  few  poetical  sentences  of  the  old  prophets,  it  is 
very  "curious"  indeed  if  Holy  Writ  can  be  justly 
referred  to  in  favor  of  the  modern  and  unchristian 
notion  of  a  "  Eeign  of  Law."  I  have  already  shown 
(see  Chaps.  VI.  and  YII.)  by  a  full  and  careful  exam- 
ination of  all  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  they  teach 
the  exact  opposite  of  "  this  idea,"  and  so,  of  course, 
have  no  "  correspondence  "  whatever  with  it.  Those 
<* great  seers  of  the  Old  Testament"  never  use  this 
expression  of  "  the  operations  of  Nature  "  or  any- 
thing like  it,  and  evidently  have  no  such  notions. 


380  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN   OP   LAW." 

Does  some  one  still  ask,  How,  then,  do  you  account 
for  these  ai:)pearances  of  *'  design  "  or  **  contrivance" 
in  the  works  of  God?  How  can  you  reject  this 
theory  unless  you  propose  a  better  one  ?  It  may  be 
wisest  for  us  to  have  no  such  theories.  "  Canst  thou 
by  searching  find  out  God  ?  "  Why  the  "  flower  that 
blushes  unseen  "  ?  "  To  what  purpose  is  this  waste  " 
of  beauty  and  life  for  which  we  can  give  no  account  ? 
I  have  a  sure  negative  theory  of  it  all.  It  was  cer- 
tainly not  that  we  might  reason  from  it  what  is  un- 
spiritual  and  irreligious,  as  for  instance  a  "  Reign  of 
Law."  AYhen  we  can  find  no  other  meaning  of  what 
God  does  than  that,  let  us  retire  with  dismay  from, 
our  reasonings ;  let  us  only  wonder  and  wait  and 
adore.  There  is  one  purpose  of  His  in  all,  which  we 
know  from  Himself,  and  that  is  love.  And  so  it  is  at 
least  a  reasonable  and  innocent  conjecture,  that  these 
wonderful  adjustments  maybe  meant  to  give  man 
the  very  exquisite  pleasure  which  they  in  fact  excite 
in  the  investigation,  to  suggest  to  him  that  he  may 
by  inventions  use  the  things  created  around  him — 
above  all,  to  kindle  his  wondering  adoration. 

"Chapter  IV.  —  Apparent  exceptions  to  the 
Supremacy  of  Purpose." 

Observe  that  in  the  very  title  of  this  chapter  we 
have  another  king  introduced.  Just  now  it  was  the 
"Eeign  of  Law,"  under  which  all  things  were:  now 
it  is  "  the  Supremacy  of  Purj^ose."  One  who  rests 
quietly  with  faith  upon  the  supremacy  of  God  has 
no  need  of  pages  of  labored  argument  for  that.     He 


"THE  REIGN  OP  LAW."  331 

knows  that  He  who  has  all  power  has  loving  purpose 
in  all  He  does;  that  it  is  also  of  God's  goodness  that 
he,  the  humble  loving  creature,  can  in  some  measui'e 
«ee  that  purpose:  so  far  as  it  is  beyond  his  sight,  he 
■believes  in  it  none  the  less. 

Pp.  188-194.  The  writer  proceeds  to  discourse 
upon  "ornament,"  or  as  I  should  prefer  to  say, 
Seauty,  in  the  works  of  God,  and  to  apply  it  to  his 
argument.  Here  again  we  have  a  partial  and  dis- 
torted view  of  a  great  truth  and  mystery,  dogmatized 
upon  and  therefore  chilled,  dwarfed  and  debased  to 
make  a  part  of  his  notion  of  the  '*  Eeign  of  Law." 
One  might  have  thought  that  this  at  least  would 
not  be  included  in  the  mechanical. 

It  is  true  that  the  Great  One  is  all  beauty  and 
glory,  and  so  pours  forth  in  His  works  a  measureless 
profusion  of  what  we  must  admire  and  enjoy  with 
the  senses  he  has  given  us,  whenever  we  perceive  it, 
and  which  extends  far  beyond  what  man  does  or  can 
isee.  But  to  say  (as  in  E.  of  L.  p.  189) :  "  It  is  certain 
enough  that  the  gift  of  ornament  has  not  been 
lavished  as  it  is  lavished  for  the  mere  admiration  of 
mankind."  is  mere  gratuitous  and  presumptuous 
assertion.  How  is  anything  of  God's  purposes 
/"certain"  to  us  except  as  He  tells  it?  But  he  goes 
on  to  say:  "It  would  be  to  doubt  the  evidence  of 
our  senses  and  of  our  reason,  or  else  to  assume 
hypotheses  of  which  there  is  no  proof  whatever,  if 
we  were  to  doubt  that  mere  ornament^  mere  variety, 
are  as  much  an  end  and  aim  in  the  workshop  of 
Nature,  as  they  are  known  to  bo  in  the  workshop  of 


B33        THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

the  goldsmith  and  the  jeweler.  Why  should  they 
not?"  Why  indeed  if  there  be  a  person  "Nature," 
busy  in  her  "  workshop  "?  But  to  one  who  knows 
the  true  God  and  is  speaking  of  "  His  wonderful 
works,"  the  question  answers  itself  in  another  sense. 

So  far  as  we  know,  God  makes  the  multiform  and 
multitudinous  beauty  of  things  to  move  His  spiritual 
creatures  with  delight  and  with  love  for  Him. 
There  is  no  occasion  then  for  any  one  to  say  :  "  Bufc 
do  you  not  know  that  countless  instances  of  this 
beauty  never  have  been,  and  never  can  be  seen  by 
men  ?  To  what  purpose  is  this  waste  ?  We  must 
discover  the  purpose."  —  Not  so.  It  is  not  for  us  to 
find  out  God  by  such  presumptuous  searching:  least 
of  all  to  use  the  riches  of  His  goodness  in  such  a 
way  as  to  remove  His  adorable  and  beloved  Person 
into  a  misty  distance  of  abstract  words,  such  as 
*'  Mind,"  "  Purpose,"  "  Contrivance  "  or  "  Law." 

And  yet  His  infinite  greatness  suggests,  and  His 
love  allows  and  encourages  a  devout  conjecture  of 
purpose  in  this  vast  profusion  of  beauty ;  namely, 
that  as  one  thing  is  as  easy  as  another  for  Him  — 
neither  time,  nor  space,  nor  number,  nor  thought 
having  any  suggestion  of  limit  to  Him, —  He  makes 
beauty  for  us  in  such  infinite  wealth  beyond  our 
personal  appropriation,  so  that  besides  what  wo 
actually  see  we  may  get  glimpses  of  a  measureless 
extent  of  it  beyond.  This  may  raise  us  to  a  juster 
sense  of  what  He  is,  and  kindle  more  and  more  that 
adoring  love  of  Him  in  which  our  real  life  consists. 


THE   REIGN   OF  LAW."  335 


"Chapter  V. —  Creation  by  Law."  What  ia 
the  object  of  this  chapter?  Is  it  to  disprove 
"Creation  by  Law,"  or  to  maintain  it?  What  is 
"Creation  by  Law"?  These  are  fair  questions 
for  any  one  to  ask,  after  he  has  read  the  chapter  aa 
attentively  as  possible.  To  say  the  least,  it  will  be 
some  time  before  he  can  answer  them.  The  most 
that  he  can  say  to  the  first  is,  that  the  writer  does 
believe  in  "Creation  by  Law,"  and  does  not  — 
according  to  certain  distinctions  of  meaning  which 
are  not  very  clear.  This  brings  us  at  once  to  the 
other  question,  which  is  the  main  one,  and  should 
have  been  answered  by  our  author  at  the  outset^ 
whereas  he  never  does  confront  it. 

In  truth,  the  absurd  ambiguity  of  the  phrase 
forbids  any  real  argument.  The  whole  meaning 
turns  upon  the  little  word  "  b3^"  Is  it  "Law,  the 
Creator,"  or  "Law,  the  method  or  means  used  by 
the  Creator,"  which  we  are  arguing  about  ?  Of 
this  the  w^riter  gives  us  certainly  no  distinct  inti- 
mation. We  might  rather  suppose  that  he  intenda 
the  former  sense,  as  only  then  is  there  a  question 
claimed  to  be  raised  between  Christian  "  scientists  " 
and  Mr.  Darwin  and  others.  Besides,  who  should 
"reign"  but  the  Creator?  —  and  if  "  La\v  "  reigns,, 
why  did  or  does  it  not  create  ?  Let  us  not  be  told 
in  repl}''  that  figures  of  speech  must  not  be  pressed 
to  such  conclusions.  Is  this  "Reign  of  Law,"  then„ 
but  a  mere  metaphor?  Have  we  here  400  pages  of 
scientific  illustration  and  labored  argument  to  show 
that  this  phrase  can  be  used  as  a  figure  of  speech  ? 


ij^4  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD   NOT  "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW.' 


Or,  if  the  book  be  all  a  rhapsody,  let  U8  know  that. 
It  is  just  to  the  writer  to  reject  that  supposition. 
His  pretension  is  to  serious  argument;  to  facts, 
science,  and  the  supreme  truth.  So  it  is  right  to- 
insist  that  if  "Law  "  can  have  a  universal  "  reign, "^ 
can  be  a  king  "of  ail  things  visible  and  invisible,"  it 
can  be  their  Creator. 

•'  Creation  by  Law  "  is,  in  this  first  sense,  absurd  ;. 
but  so  precisely  is  the  "Reign  of  Law."  The 
common  sense  of  the  matter  lies  in  small  compass. 
"Law"  is  no  person;  and  yet  Creation  is  more 
essentially  personal  action  than  anything  else  we  can 
conceive  of.  Some  men's  minds  may  be  so  perverse 
and  insane*  as  not  to  see  this.  But  we  who  have^ 
this  "  light  of  knowledge,"  must  not  try  to  be  insane 
in  that  way,  in  order  to  "get  upon  common  ground  "^ 
and  reason  with  such  persons.  "Law"  in  its  use  in 
all  science  is  only  an  abstract  term  to  express  our 
observation  of  the  usual  oi-der  of  facts.  Can  an 
order  of  facts  observed  by  us  create  the  very  things 
of  whose  succession  to  one  another  it  is  only  our 
expression  ? 

But  if  the  writer  has  been  in  all  this  chapter 
discussing  "  Creation  by  means  of  or  in  the  method  of 
Law,"  (supposing  the  One  only  and  true  Creator,) 
the  absurdity  is  as  certain,  though  not  so  plain  upon 
the  surface.  He  does  not  state  this,  nor  even  then 
say  or  show  whether  he  is  for  or  against  this  sort  of 
"Creation."  The  same  fatal  ambiguity  and  falsa 
use  of  the  word  "Law"  runs  through  it  all  ;  so  that 

*  I  use  this  term  advisedly. 


THE   REION  OP  LAW. 


the  refutiition  already  made  of  the  "  Reign  of  Law  " 
applies  with  even  greater  force  to  every  kind  of 
"  Creation  by  Law."  It  is  essentially  contrary  to 
the  truth  of  One  Self-Existent  and  Eternal  Person  : 
the  ^' one  Law-giver"  —  "the  blessed  and  only 
Potentate."  It  presupposes  something  coeval  with, 
c>xternal  to,  and  independent  of  Him.  Therefore 
simply  by  believing  in  God,  we  dismiss  at  once  and 
together  every  sort  of  "  Creation  b}^"  or  "  Reign  of 
Law." 

"Chap.  VI.  —  The  Reign  of  Law  in  the  realm  of 
Mind."  We  have  here  two  sorts  of  misuse  of  the 
word  "  mind,"  which  can  but  produce  indistinctness 
and  confusion,  and  otherwise  vitiate  the  reasoning. 
This  term  appears  personified,  and  yet  treated  as  any 
abstraction.  What  (or  whom)  does  it  then  mean  ? 
Is  it  God  (as  sometimes  really  must  be  intended, 
for  the  argument  on  p.  275  means  this  if  it  means 
anything)  —  or  the  aggregate  of  men?  —  or  each 
individual  soul  of  them  ?  We  can  so  speak  of 
Matter  in  the  mass;  but  not  of  "Mind"  without 
that  great  fact  of  personal  existence,  which  is  not 
only  self-evident  to  ourselves,  but  is  also  of  the 
essence  of  Religion. 

A  second  misuse  of  "  Mind  "  is  the  including  under 
it  all  that  is  non-material  in  man.  The  word  is 
simple  enough.  It  means  the  intellectual  and 
reasoning  part  of  man.  But  it  does  not  of  itself 
include  the  affections  and  will,  any  more  than  it  does 
thv>  circulation  of  the  blood.      Will  and  love  are  not 


836  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

mere  apprehensions  of  fact  or  thought.  They  are  a 
great  part  of  the  human  person:  the  greatest  — 
much  above  mere  knowing  and  thinking.  The 
author  of  "  The  Reign  of  Law  "  seems  to  have  no 
conception  of  that  three-fold  nature  of  man  which 
was  the  idea  of  the  first  Christians,  and  believed  by 
them  (I  think  correctly)  to  be  suggested  in  Holy 
Writ,  and  in  which  the  deepest  thinkers  of  our  day 
seem  to  concur.  He  follows  entirely  a  dull  and 
iinspiritual  philosophy  of  the  18th  century,  which 
could  never  get  beyond  this  account  of  "  all  things 
visible  and  invisible,"  (including  the  very  Eternal 
Creator  Himself,)  —  **  Matter  and  Mind." 

Even  if  we  suppose  only  a  dual  division  of  the 
human  nature,  to  designate  the  non-material  part  as 
"  Mind "  is  a  veiy  unfortunate  mistake.  A  low 
mentalism  is  scarcely  above  a  low  materialism.  It 
is  setting  up  an  opinion  of  man's  nature  that  has  no 
correspondence  with  the  language  of  "  God's  Word 
written,"  but  is  "rather  repugnant"  thereto.  It 
suggests  speaking  of  the  Eternal  Spirit  as  "  Mind," 
(which  this  author  in  fact  does)  which  He  Himself 
never  does,  nor  anything  corresponding  to  it.  It 
implies  that  our  mere  knowing  is  the  chief  and  even 
the  only  essential  part  of  spiritual  being,  which  is 
directly  contrary  to  our  wisest  reflection  and  plainly 
opposed  to  the  loving  Word  of  God.  That  teaches 
us,  and  our  true  reason  assents,  that  the  choosing, 
feeling,  and  loving  power  is  our  greatest  part;  that 
the  intellectual  must  be  subjected  to  this  in  devotion 
to    God :    otherwise    we    are    merely    more    selfish, 


"THE   REIGN   OP  LAW."  337 

really  iguorant,  and  degraded  below  our  original  and 
ideal  excellence,  the  more  we  use  our  intellect. 

(It  is  necessary  here  to  omit,  with  much  else,  a 
careful  examination  of  the  author's  arguments  about 
the  connection  of  mind  with  body,  and  the  special 
functions  of  the  brain,  also  what  he  says  of  free-will. 
The  substantial  truth  about  this  last  has  been  already 
stated  in  Chap.  X.) 

But  does  not  this  author  recognize  a  great  differ- 
ence between  human  and  brute  nature  ?  Yes,  in 
degree,  but  not  in  kind.  As  his  real  notion  of  God 
is  of  an  infinite  man,  so  his  notion  of  man  is  of  an 
infinite  brute.  Thus,  p.  300 :  *'  In  man  analogous 
facts  appear,  modified  by  his  infinitely  wider  range 
of  character,  and  the  infinite  degrees  in  which  the 
different  elements  of  mind  are  capable  of  being 
mixed  in  him."  This  absurd  misuse  of ''infinite"  is 
parallel  with  that  of  "eternal,"  by  the  poet  whom  he 
cites  (p.  286  and  elsewhere)  with  a  reverent  faith,  as 
if  Mr.  Tennyson's  transcendental  obscurities  were 
the  absolute  truth  ;  but  allowing  the  most  that  can 
avail  where  that  defence  may  be  applied,  there  is  no 
excuse  here  in  poetic  license.  It  is  not  a  mere 
inelegance  of  language,  but  obscures  the  truth,  that 
God  only  is  infinite. 

P.  301  he  says:  "We  can  see  that  the  actions 
and  opinions  of  men,  which  are  the pheno7nena  of  Mind, 
do  range  themselves  in  an  observed  order,  etc.  On 
the  recognition  of  such  causes  the  Philosophy  of  His- 
tory depends;  and  upon  that  recognition  depends 
not  less  the  possibility  of  applying  to  the  exigencies 
20 


338  THE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW.' 


of  our  own  time  und  of*  our  own  sooiet}^  a  wise  and 
successful  legislation."  Here  we  have  a  glimpse  of 
the  "hereditary  legislator"  of  whom  we  shall  later 
get  a  very  full  view.  What  reall}'  is  this  "Philo- 
sophy of  History  "  beyond  a  few  barren  abstractions, 
except  some  one  of  the  prejudiced  theories  of  govern- 
ment and  politics  which  the  particular  historian  may 
choose  to  maintain?  When  it  is  that  of  the  British 
Whig  doctrinaire,  it  is  no  doubt  very  satisfactory  to 
himself;  but  it  has  no  more  proved  and  acknow- 
ledged truth  beyond  his  party  than  any  other  part 
of  its  "platform,"  as  the  American  party-man  would 
say. 

"  Chap.  Vll. — Law  in  Politics." — This  chapter  has 
a  really  practical  and  sensible  title,  quite  unlike  the 
vague  and  really  unmeaning  headings  of  most  of  the 
others.  "Law  in  Politics" — certainU".  As  the 
real  meaning  of  Law  includes  God's  will  and  com- 
mands to  men,  as  also  those  rules  which  civil  socie- 
ties make  for  their  members  ;  so  the  latter,  especially 
as  they  should  be  a  reflection  of  the  former,  may  be 
evidently  if  not  elegantly  described  as  "Law  in 
Politics."  -But  the  writer  does  not  mean  this,  but 
only  that  what  he  erroneously  calls  "  Law  "  in  all 
else — a  vast  mechanical  combination  of  automatic 
forces — does  everything  also  in  legislation  and  gov- 
ernment. 

Yet  would  not  his  own  experience  teach  him  that 
in  the  making  of  real  laws  men  are  responsibly  free, 
and  not  the  mere  puppets  of  an  inexorable  necessity? 


"THE   REIGN   OP  TiAW."  339 


In  ibis  suggestion  we  may  perhaps  find  the  reason 
why  this  work  is  crowned  with  a  demonstration  of 
"Law  in  Politics."  It  is  not  that  we  have  again  a 
"self-denying  ordinance"  of  hereditary  legislators, 
this  time  announcing  that  they  who  make  laws  have 
no  merit  in  it,  being  moved  thereto  b}^  invariable 
forces  from  without.  No;  it  is  the  subjects  of  law 
who  are  in  this  case.  Oar  author  is  of  the  few  \vho 
study  these  "  Natural  laws,"  and  so  are  able  adroitly 
and  diligently  to  play  them  off  against  one  another, 
and  thus  govern  the  many. 

The  object  of  the  present  writer  in  calling  atten- 
tion to  this  is  not  at  all  to  deride,  but  to  understand 
the  Duke  of  Argyll,  and  so  lay  open  his  real  thought 
to  others.  And  only  thus  can  we  account  for  this 
last  chapter  wiiich  has  little  connection  with  what 
precedes.  Two  or  three  great  errors  pervade  it  all. 
The  first  of  these  is  that  the  writer  has  no  vision  of 
the  great  fact  that  all  huma!i  government  is  derived 
from  God  ;  has  no  authority  except  as  His  "  minis- 
ter," and  ought  to  enquire  for  and  do  His  Will  in  all 
it  does.  The  second  cardinal  fact  of  politics  which  I 
may  reverently  say  "  is  like  unto  it,"  is  that  God's 
laws  for  men  given  in  His  Word  are  the  best  and 
indispensable  guide  in  both  the  making  and  execut- 
ing of  human  laws.  Above  all  should  good  govern- 
ment apply  always  the  two  great  law^s  of  love,  which 
are  the  most  practical  and  perfect  suggestion  of  all 
human  conduct.  There  is  no  notice  of  these  in  the 
whole  chapter,  whether  from  having  no  thought  of 
them"  in   this  application,  or  from  fear  of  being  sen- 


340  THE   REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

timentul  or  theological  in  such  a  matter-of-fact  thing 
as  government. 

But  then  if  we  could  leave  out  of  our  view  of 
Politics  in  any  high  sense,  the  authority  and  the 
written  will  of  God,  what  is  the  purpose  of  it  as 
regards  men  ?  What  is  government  for  ?•  Passing 
by  foreign  politics,  which  is  merely  incidental  to  the 
main  purpose,  first,  the  safety  of  subjects  in  life, 
person,  and  property,  and  the  settlement  of  disputes 
between  them;  secondly,  to  regulate  trade  and  pro- 
vide certain  general  conveniences,  as  roads,  post- 
offices  and  the  like.  It  is  a  question  whether  the 
latter  is  within  the  just  power  of  Law.  There 
is  ho  question  that  the  former  is  chief  and  essential. 
Yet  this  is  the  part  of  politics  to  which  our  author's 
argument  makes  no  sort  of  reference !  In  fact  it  is 
only  "the  blessedness  of  commerce"  and  ''the  wealth 
of  nations  "  which  are  recognized  as  of  importance 
in  the  discussion.  This  is  a  very  low  and  a  very 
narrow  sense  of  Politics,  and  of  itself  makes  the 
whole  treatment  meager. 

P.  325.  •'  And  here  we  come  on  a  great  subject  i 
the  function  of  Human  Law^  as  distinguished  from 
Natural  Law,"  etc.  In  this  whole  passage  there  is 
an  absurd  reversal  of  actual  relations.  How  is  it  a 
great  subject  to  distinguish  things  which  have  noth- 
ing in  common  but  a  word  misapplied  to  one  of 
them?  not  as  much  as  ]^enuy-post  and  military-j90S^? 
"  Human  Law  "  is  real  law  ;  "  Natural  Law^  "  is  no 
law  at  all  ;  but  a  figurative  phrase  used  in  modern 
Bcience,  so  misleading    from  truth  that  it  ought  in 


"THE  REIGN   OF  LAW."  341 

the  scientific  use  at  least  to  be  incessantly  explained 
as  such,  or  better,  entirely  abandoned.  One  would 
think  from  this  author  that  the  illusive  trope  was 
the  original,  and  the  reality  the  figure. 

Thus  his  entii'e  idea  of  Human  Law  is  ''  the  col- 
lective Will  of  Society  "  (p.  326),  instead  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  blessed  Will  of  God  as  to  certain 
4uties  of  men  to  one  another.  This  low  notion  of  a 
"social  compact,"  though  some  religious  men  have 
patronized  it,  is  essentially  and  in  necessary  result 
irreligious.  He  rightly  claims  the  honor  of  it  for 
^'  modern  times."  Before  the  traditionary  truths  of 
mankind  were  so  much  effaced  by  "  wisdom  of  this 
world,"  even  corrupt  religions  held  fast  the  truth 
that  Divine  will  was  a  necessary  par€;  of  human 
politics;  only  they  misapplied  it.  That  we  ''know 
the  true  God "  requires  us  to  purify  and  apply  it 
more  than  ever.  Yet  this  Christian  writer  exults  in 
the  idea  of  founding  Human  Law  upon  the  "Laws 
of  Nature,"  as  being  the  greatest  modern  and  final 
victory  over  the  errors  of  all  the  past.  If  he  or  his 
apologists  say  that  these  "  Laws  of  Nature  "  are  the 
Will  of  God  as  they  have  discovered  it,  why  not  say 
that  ?  why  not  call  them  laws  of  God  ?  Why  banish 
the  thought  of  His  j^ersonal  Will  from  the  expression  ? 
It  is  because  the}^  are  not  thinking  of  Him,  but  of 
their  own  imagined  discoveries,  their  false  "  Eeign 
of  Law." 

There  is  a  direct  communication  from  Himself  of 
His  "good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  Will."  It 
•concerns  directly  all  great  matters  of  politics,  whicli 


343  THE  REIGN   OP   GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN   OF   LAW." 

belong  among  the  moral  acts  of  men,  and  illuminates 
all  its  minor  topics  as  nothing  else  can.  Yet  this 
writer  has  not  a  word  or  a  hint  about  it  in  his  dis- 
cussion of  law  in  politics.  Neglect  of  this  even 
impairs  his  view  of  history.  For  as  he  discusses 
this  with  much  about  the  Greeks,  and  especially 
Aristotle,  he  has  not  a  word  for  a  certain  well-known 
nation  with  a  remarkable  sj^stem  of  laws  for  a 
thousand  years  before  Aristotle,  in  which  the  direct 
will  of  Grod  was  rightly  recognized  as  the  true  "  Law 
in  Politics," 

Later  on  (p.  332)  we  find  him  sotting  in  contrast 
the  follies  of  ancient  politics  with  the  wisdom  of 
modern.  He  quotes  Dugald  Stewart  with  approval, 
thus  :  "  The  one  great  error  of  ancient  systems  of 
political  philosophy  that  the  natural  desii'e  of  men 
for  the  accumulation  of  wealth  is  an  evil,  etc.  How 
opposite  is  the  doctrine  of  modern  politicians  .... 
their  great  aim  is  to  open  new  sources  of  national 
opulence,  "  &c. 

hi  this,  indeed,  he  only  follows  all  the  leaders  of 
what  is  now  called  the  science  of  Political  Economy, 
assuming  even,  what  they  do  not,  that  this  is  the 
chief  affair  of  Politics.  But  there  is  a  greater  fault 
here  for  a  champion  of  Christian  belief.  He  not 
only  talks  (see  p.  332)  of  the  "  blessedness  of  Com- 
merce," while  he  has  no  such  epithets  for,  and  no 
mention  at  all  of,  "  weightier  matters  of  the  law  "; 
but,  without  caution  or  qualification,  he  mentions 
and  affirms  this  wisdom  of  "  modern  nations "  in 
those  words  :  "  They  never  hold  the  absurd  doctrine 


THE  REIGN  OP   LAW."  843 


that  JNature  was  wrong  when  she  taught  men  to 
desire  wealth,"  etc.  There  is  no  excuse  for  this  rude 
and  irreverent  contradiction  in  express  words  of  Him 
who  is  the  wisest  and  kindest  friend  of  men,  who, 
though  Sovereign  Lord,  condescended  to  be  one  of 
us,  that  He  might  be  **  the  Light  of  the  world." 

For  no  matter  how  repugnant  this  may  be  to 
opinions  and  }mssions  of  civilized  men,  or  how  ready- 
many  Christian  writers  may  be  with  comments  upon 
the  sacred  words  to  show  that  they  do  allow  what  men 
are  so  desirous  to  do,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  He  said, 
"  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  earth," 
and  warned  them  against  "  the  deceitfulness  of 
riches  ";  as  also  that  He  inspired  one  afterward  to 
«ay  in  His  name  that  "  the  love  of  money  is  the  root 
of  all  evil."  I  repeat  then  that  it  is  rude  and  irrev- 
erent for  any  Christian  writer  to  speak  of  '*  the 
^tbsurd  doctrine  that  Nature  was  wrong  when  she 
taught  men  to  desire  wealth,"  and  that  such  treat- 
ment of  Our  Lord's  words  will  do  more  harm  to  the 
faith  of  others  than  any  arguments  for  faith  which 
he  thinks  he  is  making,  can  do  good.  It  may  be 
that  the  general  ideas  of  Political  Economy  can  be 
shown  not  to  contradict  these  holy  words  ;  but  this 
must  be  shown  positively.  And  all  loving  honor 
and  careful  reverence  for  them  must  be  shown  by 
whoever  has  to  mention  things  which  certainly  at 
first  sight,  and  most  certainly  as  a4)ove  expressed,  do 
not  accord  with  those  words.  And  it  is  also  certain 
that  if  upon  any  ground  we  promote  the  love  and 
pursuit  of  riches  among  men,  we  must  take  at  least 


344  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  KEIGN  OF  LAW." 

equal  pains  at  the  same  time  to  impress  them  with 
the  warnings  against  spiritual  harm  of  which  they 
then  stand  in  jeopardy. 

What  follows  for  many  pages  is  a  reall}'  interesting 
account  of  the  growth  of  manufactures  in  England, 
and  of  legislation  about  their  work-people.  His 
attempt  to  connect  this  with  his  notion  of  a  "  Eeign 
of  Law  "  is  futile.  Upon  that  theor}^  the  hard  men 
who  opposed  all  interference  with  their  gains,  by 
law  in  behalf  of  their  workmen,  were  right.  It  was 
no  figment  of  "  Natural  Law  "  which  brought  this 
protection  against  oppression  —  this  check  to  the 
political  economy  which  was  making  a  few  "  mill- 
owners"  very  rich,  and  thousands  of  men,  women 
and  children  haggard  and  weak,  ignorant  and  wicked. 
No,  it  was  some  conviction  of  a  7'eal  law,  the  law  of 
love  which  (xod  has  given  us  ail  in  original  tradition, 
and  responding  consciousness;  but  most  of  all  in 
Christ's  glorious  Gospel. 

We  have  not  a  word  cf  this  here,  but  only  (as  p. 
356,  (fee.)  a  sort  of  phj^sico-metaphysical  argument 
about  "  Freedom  "  and  "  Will,"  and  a  "  true  and  a  false 
doctrine  of  Nece8sit3\"  It  shows  the  blindness  and 
folly  of  this  mechanical  and  commercial  idea  of 
"Law  in  Politics,"  that  he  attributes  the  degradation 
of  the  factor}^  work-people  to  their  "  instincts  of 
labor^  having  for  their  conscious  purpose  the  acqui- 
sition of  wealth."  It  is  his  "love  of  gain"  which 
with  poor  Muggins  the  saw-grinder  "overrides  even 
the  love  of  life,"  and  affectionate  pity  for  his  wife 
and   children,  so    that    he    makes    them    as   well    as 


THE   RBIGN   OP  LAW."  345 


himself  grow  prematurely  old  with  incessant  work, 
bad  food  and  air,  scanty  clothing,  much  dirt,  utter 
ignorance  and  no  religion.  80  this  natural  and 
useful  love  of  gain  must  be  checked  in  him  by  the 
''  Will  of  the  Community  in  the  form  of  Law/* 
enacted  by  hereditary  legislators  and  the  like. 

How  little  this  intelligent  and  well-intending  man 
comprehends  the  life  and  needs  of  his  poor  country- 
men. Muggins  and  his  fellows  hope  for  nothing 
from  their  incessant  labor  but  a  miserable  livings 
and  dare  not  let  it  go  for  a  day  lest  they  lose  that. 
There  is  a  "  love  of  gain  "  somewhere  that  has  to  do 
with  their  wretchedness,  but  it  is. not  in  them^ 
They  have  their  unhappy  sins  which  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment have  no  force  to  "  take  away,"  tht>,,  real  blessed 
remedy  for  which  the  notion  of  a  "  Eeign  of  Law  " 
does  its  utmost  to  counteract. 

P.  369,  &c. — He  exhibits  to  us  among  the  "  natural 
laws"  or  "forces  "  out  of  whose  combined  "Reign  " 
we  may  work  results  in  Politics,  "the  Spirit  of 
Association."  This  is,  as  he  describes  it,  merely  a 
part  of  the  vast  machine  of  "Law,"  which  the  deep 
student  and  skilful  manipulator,  who  is  also  a  legis- 
lator (by  inheritance  or  otherwise),  can  "contrive" 
and  "adjust"  with  other  forces  to  make  people  good 
and  happy  by  statute,  or  merely  persuade  them  to 
achieve  the  same  by  voluntary  societies.  This  force,, 
he  says,  is  an  instinct  of  self;  but  it  can  be  guided  by 
wise  men  for  the  good  of  all.  Everything  implies 
that  to  use  this  "  force  "  to  any  great  purpose  belongs- 
to  the  modern  discovery  of  a  "Reign  of  Law." 


346  THE   RBION   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

What  then  must  we  judge  of  the  whole  theory 
when  we  find  this  illustration  of  it  (in  which  at  last^ 
for  the  first  and  last  time,  we  have  mention  of  that 
great  Dlinne  institution, —  without  accounting  for 
which,  for  its  influence  everj^where  actual,  and 
much  greater  possible,  any  philosoph}^  of  human 
life  and  improvement,  personal,  social  or  political^ 
would  be  fatally  defective)?  "  The  interests  of  Self,, 
justly  appreciated  and  rightly  understood,  may  be, 
nay,  indeed  must  be  the  interests  also  of  other  men, 
of  society,  of  country,  of  the  Church,  and  of  the 
world."  Is  this  meant  to  imply  that  the  wonderful 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth  is  a  human  institution,  one 
of  the  "adjustments  "  of  the  "  Natural  Law  of  Asso- 
ciation "  ?  Certainlj^  this  indifferent  silence  about 
it  as  a  great  power  among  men  for  good,  shows  that 
he  does  not  recognize  it  as  that  society  of  men  of 
which  God  is  the  Patron  and  His  Son  the  ever- 
present  Head,  and  in  which  are  treasured  all  the 
spiritual  interests  of  mankind. 

Accordingly^  (p.  376)  we  learn  that  ''  two  things 
are  necessarj^  to  cure  all  political  evils  of  our  timc,"^ 
first,  unshaken  faith  in  ( — God  f  and  His  means  of 
grace  to  mankind  ?  No,  but)  great  Natural  laws  ; 
and  secondly,  a  fiiith  not  less  assured  in  ( — here  at 
least  we  may  hope  for  a  mention  of  the  almighty 
goodness  ;  but  no — )  the  free  agency  of  Man,  etc. 
Indeed  the  latter  has  no  meaning  here,  as  according 
to  the  notion  of  a  "  Eeign  of  Law  "  free  agency  is  an 
illusion  ;  only  a  part  of  the  movement  of  the  "  great 
Natural  Laws."  And  almost  as  if  to  set  this  above 
and  against  the  incarnate  Word  of  God  Himself,  tho 


''  THE   KEIGN   OP  LAW."  347 

words  above  quoted  are  followed  by  a  repetition  in 
even  stronger  terms  of  what  we  have  already  noticed 
contradicting  "  what  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  saith." 
■"  Thus  the  love  of  gain  is  an  instinct  implanted  in 
the  human  mind,  and  the  endeavor  to  suppress  it 
has  always  been  the  violation  of  a  Natural  Law." 
Then  indeed  the  Kingdom  of  Him  Who  said,  "Lay 
not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  earth  "  intends 
the  overthrow  of  these  men's  "  Eeign  of  Law  ;"  and  if 
so,  that  is  my  side  forever. 

The  author's  discussion  of  English  legislation  upon 
labor  and  the  combinations  of  laborers  is  spoiled  for 
an}^  good  effect  by  the  same  false  philosophy.  He 
thinks  the  "  great  science  of  Politics  "  much  behind 
the  others,  and  hopes  for  its  great  advancement  in 
the  direction  he  pursues.  Whatever  is  high  and  true 
ill  Politics  is  not  to  be  found  by  trying  to  make  "a 
great  science  "  of  it,  but  by  returning  to  the  simplest 
principles  of  order,  justice,  and  mercy;  by  illuminat- 
ing it  with  all  true  religion  ;  by  making  all  jurispru- 
dence and  jurisdiction  conform  to  the  only  true  Law 
—the  Will  of  the  Only  True  God. 

That  would  answer  favorably  the  question  whether 
modern  nations  are  to  run  the  career  of  all  of  old  ; 
and  each  like  them  and  like  a  great  tree,  decay,  die, 
and  fall  at  last.  The  Duke  of  Argyll  thinks  not, 
because  for  some  reasons  (among  which  he  does  not 
mention  or  hint  at  the  mighty  Kingdom  of  Our  Lord 
now  among  men),  "  that  epoch  has  passed  away." 
But  is  it  to  him  only  a  Hebrew  rhapsody  which 
says  :  "  The  nation  or  kingdom  that  will  not  serve 
thee,  shall  perish  "? 


B48         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OF  LA.W." 


APPENDIX  E. 

gOME   REMARKS    UPON    "THE    LAW    OF    LOVE    AND    LOVE 
AS   A    law"    by    mark    HOPKINS,    D.  D.,    LL.D.,    AC. 

HE  who  observes  carefully  will  find  everywhere 
and  in  most  unexpected  places  marks  of  the 
abject  slavery  to  this  false  notion  of  "  law  "  which 
prevails  in  all  modern  reasoning  upon  questions  of 
philosophy  or  religion.  Even  the  more  spiritual 
and  free  pilgrims  towards  Divine  truth  start  off 
with  this  cumbersome  burden  on  their  back,  like 
Bunyan's  "Christian,"  fancying  it  a  part  of  the 
living  body,  not  as  a  hunchback's  disfigurement 
either,  but  as  a  part  of  "the  dignity  of  human 
jiature." 

To  the  present  writer  the  most  impressive  and 
touchinsr  instance  of  this  is  in  a  book  with  the  excel- 
lent  title  given  above — "  The  Law  of  Love,"  etc.  If 
there  be  any  book  which  this  age  of  Christendom 
needs  more  than  anything  else,  it  is  one  which, 
within  moderate  compass  and  in  simple  but  power- 
ful words,  shall  recall  us  all  to  the  true  theory  and 
practice  of  a  good  life  in  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord 
according  to  His  own  great  commandments.  This 
author  is  also  a  most  pure  and  amiable  man,  revered 
by  hundreds  of  cultivated  men  as  their  wisest  in- 
structor. I  notice  this  book  also  especially  because, 
first,  it  refers  to  the  "  Eeign  of  Law"  in  its  "view 
of  the  immutability  of  law  (the  only  correct  one)," 


'*  THE  LAW  OF  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."     349 

and  because  it  seems  rather  an  attempt  to  supply  the 
confessed  defect  of  that  book  in  not  treating  of 
<'Law  in  Christian  Theology." 

Before  I  illustrate  the  whole  subject  by  showing 
bow  the  book  of  Dr.  Hopkins  is  not  the  book  we 
need,  perhaps  I  ought  rather  to  qualify  my  positive 
assertion  of  such  a  need.  What  is  wanted  is  that 
Christian  teaching  —  the  making  Christ's  disciples  of 
this  and  ''all  nations" — shall  be  full  of  the  thought 
that  the  first  and  greatest  duty  of  every  human  soul 
is  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  then  to  love 
one's  neighbor.  It  is  just  that  first  and  greatest 
commandment  that  the  new  book  upon  "the  Law  of 
Love  and  Love  as  a  Law  "  must  have  much  and  most 
to  say  about.  Eeligious  writing  now-a-days  does 
sometimes  feebly  urge  this  divine  affection  as  being, 
if  not  imaginary  and  impossible,  the  highest  orna- 
ment of  a  holy  life,  or  a  fine  figure  of  speech  to 
describe  being  very  good  otherwise.  Now  such  a 
book  as  I  have  supposed  might  be  a  powerful  help  to 
call  back  the  general  teaching  by  God's  ministers 
and  general  conscious  effort  by  His  people  of  this 
personal  love  for  Him,  the  lack  of  which  nothing 
else  can  supply. 

The  general  mistake  of  the  book  appears  upon  its 
title-page:  "The  Law,  &c.,  or  Moral  Science^  theo- 
retical and  practical."  Why  should  there  be  any 
*•  Moral  Science  "  ?  We  may  allow  of  Physical  or 
even  Mental  Science  —  the  methodical  statement  of 
what  men  have  so  far  discovered  in  these  matters  of 
knowledge,  and  as  an  assistance  for  further  investi- 
30 


350        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

gution.  But  what  is  "  morals  "  ?  Simply  what  a 
man  ought  to  do  under  the  second  great  command- 
ment of  Our  Lord  —  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself. 
Is  this  something  which  men  have  discovered  in 
their  curiosity  after  truth,  and  to  which  they  may 
go  on  to  add  b}^  further  discovery?  Not  at  all.  It 
is  something  which  God  tells  them  directly,  which  is 
of  the  real  substance  of  their  actual  living,  and  which 
cannot  rightly  be  separated  fi-om  their  religion. 
Then  also  He  has  organized  among  them  a  society 
with  continual  succession  to  remind  them  of  these 
two  inseparable  matters,  and  to  be  their  guide  in 
questions  of  doubt  about  them. 

Can  we  Christians  also  have  a  science  of  our  duty? 
Possibly  in  one  aspect  of  it  as  a  cautious  and  rev- 
erent speculation  about  such  questions  as  are  not 
precisely  defined  in  God's  Word.  Yet  even  then,  in 
all  experience,  what  is  there  to  show  of  an}^  good 
done  by  it?  There  has  been  some  plain  experience 
of  harm  from  the  self-sufficiency  of  men  in  such 
attempts  at  a  science  of  morals.  In  truth  the  very 
Word  of  God  warns  us  that  such  mingling  of  our  specu- 
lations with  Divine  truth  tends  only  to  obscure  it. 
Such  science  also  invariably  w^orks  to  separate  morals 
from  religion  in  men's  apprehension,  and  that  always 
promotes  irreligion.  The  severance  is  also  in  many 
ways  unwholesome  for  good  morals. 

If  we  suppose  what  we  know  about  this  to  have 
come  to  all  men  by  information  given  to  the  first 
man,  and  coming  down  to  all  others  by  tradition,  or 
by  a  moral  instinct  called  "conscience,"  in  either  of 


"THE  LAW  OF  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."     351 

these  ways  in  different  parts  or  proportions  ;  still  we 
know  that  it  has  been  taught  them  completely  by  a 
later  Word  of  God.  This  last  also  was  not  mere 
information  dispersed  in  the  world  2000  years  ago, 
or  only  digested  in  a  book  ;  but  as  we  have  noticed 
before,  provided  to  be  kept  alive  by  the  instructions 
and  rites  of  a  powerful  society  of  its  believers,  in 
which  God  maintains  a  special  perpetual  presence, 
and  provides  that  it  shall  continue  by  orderly  suc- 
cession in  all  the  generations  and  communities  of 
men.  So  far  as  the  knowledge,  and  still  more  the 
practice  of  these  duties  is  indispensable  to  men,  this 
is  thus  provided  for.  If,  then,  any  men  thus  favored 
should  by  irresponsible  studies  and  writings,  devise 
other  means  for  this  instruction,  it  could  only  con- 
fuse and  mislead  them  away  from  the  Divine  method. 
I  grant  that  when  this  just  idea  of  the  Church  as 
God's  school  of  duty — Ecclesia  docens — disappears 
from  the  minds  of  even  Christian  men,  such  human 
contrivances  to  take  its  place  are  more  natural. 
But  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  we  ought  all  to 
return  to  that  idea,  clearly  taught  in  the  New 
Testament  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
Compare  this  with  a  "  moral  science"  as  in  the 
very  case  before  us,  intended  and  supposed  to  be 
most  Christian.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  a  hook 
with  many  chapters  of  doubtful  assumptions,  and 
(as  they  alwa3^s  would  be  to  most  learners,)  obscure 
if  not  quite  unintelligible  reasonings,  followed  by 
other  chapters  of  special  directions  of  what  we  ought 
to  do — too  numerous  to  be  called  principles,  and  too 


852  THE   REIGN   OP   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

few  to  reach  a  hundredth  part  of  our  actual  duties. 
On  the  other  hand  wo  have  a  vast  association  of 
men  with  God  Himself,  having  representatives  in 
every  neighborhood  and  company  of  men,  so  that 
these  may  always  know  one  another  personally  ;. 
speaking  in  each  household  to  the  smallest  child,  as 
well  as  gathering  the  little  ones  in  companies,  and 
teaching  them  duty  to  God  and  one's  neighbor  in  a 
catechism  very  simple,  yet  profoundly  wise  :  follow- 
ing them  through  all  ages  and  stages  of  life  here  ta 
its  end  with  frequent  teachings  to  us  all  of  God'» 
will  and  laws,  and  their  application  to  each  one'* 
choices  and  acts,  with  a  God's  Book  of  which  it  is 
"  witness  and  keeper,"  which  it  puts  in  all  hands  and 
refers  to  as  perfect  truth. 

Thus  a  science  of  morals  is  not  needed,  and  is  of 
no  use  to  men  in  helping  them  to  be  good, — to  do  their 
duties.  But  on  the  other  hand  it  may  hinder  them 
in  this  by  being  taken  as  a  substitute  for  the  true 
means ;  or  even  if  it  be  imagined  a  help  to  that,  by 
confusing  them  with  its  artificial  distinctions  and 
false  assumptions.  Thus  this  author  sets  out  with 
that  same  false  notion  of  a  ^'  reign  of  law,"  which 
has  been  refuted  in  the  present  book.  He  proceeds 
at  once  to  search  for  the  "  ground  of  obligation  "  of 
our  duty.  So  he  must  find  it  not  in  the  Supreme 
Will,  but  in  some  "law"  which  is  at  least  equally 
eternal  with  that  Will.  He  mentions  ten  "  theories  " 
of  such  obligation.  One  of  these  is  the  simple  truth 
as  God  Himself  teaches  it  to  us  all.  He  rejects  and 
supposes  that  he  refutes  that,  establishing  his  own 


"THE  LAW  OF  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."  353 

notion  which  is  quite  as  unsatisfactory  and  obscure 
as  any  of  the  eight  others. 

Let  us  see  how  he  disposes  (p.  15)  of  the  Divine 
fact  that  the  Will  of  God  is  the  highest  conception 
and  reason  why  we  ought  to  do  or  desire  anything. 
*'■  According  to  an  eighth  system  the  will  of  God  is 
the  ground  of  obligation.  We  are,  it  is  said,  under 
obligation  to  do  whatever  He  commands,  simply 
because  He  commands  it.  Philosophically  this  is 
the  same  doctrine  as  that  of  Hobbes  who  referred 
everything  to  the  will  of  the  law-giver,  or  of  the 
law-making  power  regarded  simply  as  will  and 
accompanied  by  power.  The  question  is  whether 
the  will  of  any  being  taken  by  itself  and  without 
reference  to  those  qualities  and  motives  that  lie 
back  of  will,  can  be  the  ground  of  obligation.  It  is 
true  that  the  will  of  God  is  an  infallible  rule,  and 
that  we  are  to  do  unhesitatingly  whatever  He  com- 
mands. It  is  true  also  that  this  can  be  said  of  no 
other  will,  whether  of  an  individual  or  of  any  number 
of  individuals  however  organized.  It  is  this  fact 
that  the  will  of  God  is  to  be  always  and  implicitly 
obeyed  that  gives  the  system  now  in  question  its 
plausibility.  But  are  we  to  obey  his  will  simply 
because  it  is  His  will,  or  from  faith,  that  is,  because 
we  have  adequate  ground  for  implicit  confidence 
that  His  will  will  ahvaj^s  be  determined  by  wisdom 
and  goodness?" 

We  are  here  in  the  presence  of  a  question  surpassed 
by  none  other  which  human  thought  can  compass. 
Let  us  therefore  approach   it   with   all    loving  and 


354  THE  REIGN    OF   GOD   NOT  "THE    REIGN   OP   LAW." 

religious  humility  which  is  our  best  wisdom.  The 
great  truth  of  what  we  should  think  of  God  and  His 
will  ought  not  to  stand  on  the  level  of  our  reason- 
ings. And  thus  in  Appendix  G.  infra,  I  have 
ventured  only  to  behold  it,  and  exhibit  it  to  others 
in  a  meditation,  not  an  argument.  But  dealing  with 
the  arguments  of  a  fellow-man,  I  may  fairly  show 
the  inherent  futility  of  them  all  by  the  example  of 
the  first.  Two  hundred  years  ago  the  atheist 
Hobbes  argued  that  there  is  no  absolute  truth  ia 
religion,  and  no  difference  of  right  and  wrong  in 
principle  for  our  conduct,  but  that  whatever  the 
despot  or  other  legislature  of  our  country  should  or- 
dain by  human  law  would  be  the  true  religion  for  us 
and  the  right  thing  to  do.  Dr.  Hopkins  says  that 
this  is  "  philosophically  the  same  "  as  to  know  of  no 
higher  or  so  high  reason  for  doing  anything  as 
simply  to  obey  the  blessed  will  of  Him  by  whose 
will  alone  all  else  exists — we  and  these  philosophers 
themselves — kings,  senators  and  citizens, — by  whose 
will  alone  men  have  any  knowledge,  sentiments  or 
duties.  Not  only  are  these  two  neither  "  philosoph- 
ically "  nor  in  any  other  way  "  the  same  doctrine," 
but  no  two  ideas  are  more  opposed.  The  will  of 
God  is  sui  generis.  Nothing  else  is  comparable  to  it 
in  authority,  in  power,  in  perfect  knowledge  of  all 
persons  and  things,  as  being  itself  the  cause  of  the 
occasions  of  our  doing  right,  as  being  the  very  will 
of  absolute  and  actual  love. 

In  truth  all  actual  religion  is  at  last  involved  in 
this  idea.     If  we  fancy  that  we   can  go  anywhere 


"the  law  op  love  and  love  as  a  law."         355 

back  of  this  glorious  Person,  and  find  sometliing  to 
which  Ho  is  in  the  minutest  degree  subject,  we  have 
so  far  ^'  departed  from  the  living  God."  I  do  not 
say  that  we  can  all,  or  possibly  any  of  us  really 
see  Him  in  this  His  absolute  and  all-sufficient  Self- 
Existence — Himself  the  Source  and  Purpose,  "  the 
Beginning  and  the  Ending  "  of  everything  else  good 
we  can  conceive  of.  But  we  can  all  with  adoration 
and  awe  believe  this,  and  in  this  worshipping  love 
reject  the  thought  of  an3^thing  great  or  good  except 
as  what  He  chooses  shall  be. 

Is  it  indeed  ^^  ihQ  question  whether  the  will  of  a?i2/ 
being  taken  by  itself,  &c.,  can  be  the  ground  of  obli- 
gation "  ?  We  do  ourselves  great  wrong  (Him  we 
cannot  affect  in  His  infinite  greatness),  if  we  think 
of  God  with  such  comparisons.  He  is  not  "  any 
being  "  for  such  reasoning.  With  all  other  persons 
we  may,  and  must  "  consider  qualities  and  motives 
that  lie  back  of  will."  They  are  all  our  fellow- 
creatures,  sharing  with  us  that  little  range  of  will 
which  He  has  allowed  to  us  all  (we  fellow-men 
having  great  common  faults  of  character),  and  only 
such  little  power  and  authority  as  He  has  distributed 
to  them  in  order  that  they  may  do  His  loill.  He  is 
the  "  One  law-giver."  "  Of  Him,  and  to  Him,  and 
through  Him  are  all  things;  to  whom  be  glory 
forever." 

But  the  writer  as  a  good  man  to  whom  that  Will 
of  God  is  law,  hastens  to  declare  that  it  is  in  fact 
an  "  infallible  rule  "  for  a  man  to  act  by  ;  not  because 
it  is  the    reason  for  our  obedience,  but    because  it 


356        THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   REIGN  OF  LAW." 

always  agrees  with  that  true  reason.  This  he  says 
^*  gives  the  system  now  in  question  (meaning  that 
simple  and  complete  account  of  all  goodness  which 
God  Himself  has  given  us :  as  when  Our  Lord  said — 
"he  that  doeth  the  Will  of  God  the  same  is  my 
brother"  &c.) — its  plausibility.  Plausibility  indeed  ! 
One  might  better  talk  of  the  plausibility  of  the 
Ten  Commandments.  His  notion  is  that  we  ought 
to  do  our  duties  from  some  great  eternal  reasons, 
that  what  God  wishes  of  us  is  always  according  to 
those  eternal  reasons,  and  so  His  will  is  a  safe  guide 
to  such  duty.  But  let  any  one  take  the  pains  to 
•examine  in  Holy  Scripture  the  many  directions  to 
obey  God's  Will,  and  allusions  to  it  in  mentioning 
our  various  duties,  and  he  will  see  that  while  not  one 
suggests  the  other  account  of  it,  a  hundred  imply 
that  the  one  and  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  do 
God's  will  is  simply  because  it  is  His  will. 

This  also  confutes  the  author's  false  notion  that 
there  is  no  place  for  faith  in  God,  unless  that  wo 
thus  have  "  adequate  ground  for  implicit  confidence 
that  His  will  will  always  be  determined  by  wisdom 
and  goodness."  His  will  determines  all  things,  and  is 
wisdom  and  goodness.  When  we  are  most  wise  and 
loving  we  can  find  nothing  higher  than  the  mere  will 
of  God,  nothing  else  so  high.  And  is  there  nothing 
then  left  for  religious  faith?  Is  it  then,  as  Dr.  H. 
says,  "  impossible  "  ?  He  makes  no  attempt  to  prove 
this  extraordinary  assertion  either  from  the  reason 
of  the  thing  or  from  Holy  Scripture.  We,  however, 
will  not  leave  it  so,  but  will  briefly  note  what  God 


**THE  LAW  OP  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."     35T 

does  teach  us  of  faith  by  our  reason  and  experience 
and  a  few  plain  sentences,  out  of  many  such,  in  His- 
.Word  written. 

And,  first,  wo  cannot  begin  any  true  religion  which 
is  the  very  life  for  which  God  made  us,  without  faith 
in  Him.  "He  that  cometli  unto  God  must  believe 
that  He  is" — is  what  He  is  essentially  ;  therefore  to- 
be  so  loved  and  obeyed  that  we  can  conceive  of  na 
other  so  high  reason  for  doing  anything  as  that  it  i& 
His  will.  Not  but  what  the  Good  One  accepts  our 
poor  obedience  when  other  motives  mix  with  what 
is  the  true  and  highest,  and  even  when  that  last  is 
hardly  in  our  thoughts.  But  that  true  and  highest 
motive  we  must  be  always  endeavoring  to  recognize 
and  follow.  And  so  men  would  much  more  in  fact  if 
the  moral  and  religious  teaching  of  our  day  were  not 
so  lamentably  silent  about  the  personal  duty  of  loving 
God.  And  at  last,  in  the  place  and  life  of  "  perfect 
love,"  He  will  reward  us  with  the  immediate  vision 
and  enjoyment  of  this  in  all  we  do. 

And  cannot  one  who  knows  no  higher  reason  for 
doing  God's  will  than  that  it  is  His  will,  have  faith 
as  a  degraded  and  guilty  creature  to  confide  in  the 
Eedemption  of  Our  Lord  ?  to  rise  above  the  pleasures 
and  possessions  of  the  brief  present,  and  patiently 
to  endure  its  sorrows?  to  be  spiritual  instead  of 
worldly  and  animal,  walking  "  by  faith  and  not  by 
sight"?  to  love  the  invisible  God  and  that  much 
greater  part  of  our  neighbors  whom  we  never  see? 

On  the  other  hand  not  once  in  Holy  Writ  is  it 
said  or  suggested  that  the  will  of  God  is  our  rule  of 


858  THE  BKIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 


conduct,  because  we  have  faith  "  that  His  will  wilt 
always  be  determined  bj^  wisdom  and  goodness."  Yet 
there  are  forty  of  the  clearest  and  strongest  sen- 
tences, which  present  our  doing  the  will  of  God  from 
the  heart  as  the  greatest  achievement  of  a  man  ;  and 
even  that  man  who  "  was  God  "  said  simply,  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me."  All 
exists  for  that  "good  pleasure,"  whether  it  know  and 
choose  that  purpose  or  not.  It  is  our  distinction,  as- 
God  has  made  us  in  His  glorious  image,  to  do  His- 
will  with  knowledge  and  of  loving  choice. 

Why  even  as  between  fellow-creatures  we  can 
conceive  and  even  know  as  a  fact  that  one  can  be  so- 
devoted  to  another  in  love  as  to  live  only  for  him 
and  to  be  happy  only  in  doing  what  he  wishes.. 
Such  an  affection  may  in  fact  always  fall  short  of  our 
ideal  conception,  and  is  indeed  very  likely  to  excite- 
contempt.  But  why  ?  Because  the  one  so  loved  i* 
at  the  best  so  little  and  imperfect.  But  when  it  is- 
one  of  us  thus  loving  the  Unapproachable  and  Per- 
fect One,  the  only  sorrow  is  in  our  present  coming 
short,  and  our  aspirations  may  soar  without  a  check 
in  the  endless  future  which  extends  before  and  above- 
us. 

With  this  all  the  Word  of  God  is  in  clear  and 
beautiful  accord.  The  first  and  great  law  is  to  love 
Him.  Such  love  aspires  above  all,  and  inchiding  all,. 
to  know  and  to  do  what  He  wishes.  It  glows  in  all 
those  mighty  sayings  of  Holy  Writ  w^iich  bid  us- 
"do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.''  Whatever  we  ought  to 
do  is  right  because  it  is  His  will,   not  is  His  will 


"  THE   LAW   OF   LOVE   AND   LOVE   AS  A   LAW."  359 


because  it  is  right.  He  is  ''the  Beginning  and  the 
Ending."  In  this  life  of  love  only  we  •'  find  rest  for 
our  souls,"  success  for  all  their  aspirations,  an  im- 
measurable calmness  of  felicity. 

All  the  other  theories  of  moral  obligation  have 
what  truth  there  is  in  them  as  they  are  included  in 
this.  Is  it  that  of  utility?  The  will  of  God  will 
effect  Avhat  is  most  for  our  welfare ;  for  He  is 
""loving  unto  every  man  and  His  tender  mercies  are 
over  all  His  works."  Is  it  the  "fitness,"  or  "  truth," 
or  "  order"  of  things?  That  is  true  and  fit  and  the 
true  order  which  He  does  and  because  He  does  it. 
Is  it  said  that  our  duty  arises  from  our  "relations  "? 
Whence  came  those  relations  ?  They  are  but  a  part 
of  that  will  of  Grod.  To  say  that  things  are  right 
because  they  are  right  is  scarcely  more  than  a  mere 
Juggle  of  words.  This  as  Avell  as  Br.  H.'s  equally 
unsatisfactory  theory  of  man  seeking  his  "  end,"  are 
but  blind  gropings  in  the  wrong  direction  after  need- 
Jess  theories.  We  have  only  to  turn  toward  the 
light  and  open  our  eyes  to  see  that  simple  glorious 
truth  given  to  us  direct  from  Heaven,  that  to  love 
■God  with  all  the  heart,  and  for  that  love  to  do  all 
His  will,  is  the  (not  "chief"  but)  whole  end  of  man. 

In  this  light  his  two  following  arguments  require 
110  answer:  that  1st.  on  this  supposition  "moral 
science  is  impossible,"  and  2d.  that  then,  "  God  has 
no  moral  character."  But  this  last  expression  is  at 
once  so  irreverent  and  unmeaning  that  it  may  puzzle 
some  minds  as  a  mysterious  argument  to  which  they 
know  not  how  to  reply.     "  Moral  character,"  as  ond 


S60  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP   LAW." 


of  the  phrases  of  the  artificial  "  moral  science,"  has 
no  meaning  at  all  but  as  it  describes  how  the 
Absolute  Lord  has  made  men  to  obc}^  His  will  with 
knowledge  of  it  and  freedom  of  choice,  and  therefore 
a  possibility  of  guilt}^  disobedience.  For  any  of 
them  then  to  apply  this  same  measure  to  Him,  and 
set  aside  the  glorious  truth  about  Him,  because, 
according  to  that.  He  would  have  "  no  moral  charac- 
ter," is  only  so  much  the  worse  for  their  "  moral 
science." 

In  the  same  mistaken  way  he  quotes  the  rash 
•speech  of  Abraham  (followed  soon  by  humble  con- 
fession of  his  presumption),  as  "  the  appeal  of  God  to 
Abraham:  'Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do 
right  ?  '  "  Yet  in  no  just  sense  is  this  contrary  to  the 
truth,  that  whatever  is  God's  will  is  for  that  reason 
right.  Finally  he  tells  us  of  that  divine  truth : 
*'  This  sj^stem  has  been  strangely  adopted  under  the 
impression  that  it  honors  Grod.  It  renders  it  iinpos- 
sible  that  He  should  be  hotiored."  In  this  he  seems  to 
copy  Sir  James  Mcintosh.  That  judicious  literary 
critic  and  elegant  Whig  orator  was  altogether  out  of 
his  depth  in  giving  judgment  upon  the  vast  matters 
of  religion.  Such  an  assertion  by  Dr.  Hopkins 
requires  more  serious  notice.  That  it  is  very  rash  and 
incorrect  to  say  that  "it  renders  it  impossible,  &c." 
is  very  plain  from  my  own  experience;  which  is 
that  only  by  this  thought  of  the  Supreme  will  can 
my  soul  most  glorify  God.  But  the  greatest  refu- 
tation of  it  is  in  the  mighty  voice  of  Holy  Writ, 
proclaiming     with     simple    directness    in     Psalms, 


"THE  LAW  OF  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."     361 

Epistles  and  Gospels,   that  the  Will  of  God  is  the 
sole  and  sufficient  reason  for  all  things. 

It  would  be  interesting  and  useful  even  now  to 
pursue  this  criticism  into  the  other  theoretical  dis- 
cussions and  practical  rules  of  which  the  book  is 
made  up.  But  having  shown  the  primary  error 
which  forbids  the  author's  giving  a  true  account  of 
^'the  Law  of  Love,"  and  its  alliance  with  the  other 
false  notion  of  a  "reign  of  law,"  we  shall  have  space 
only  for  a  few  brief  notices  of  some  passages  which 
further  illustrate  this. 

For  the  first  hundred  pages  more  of  **  theoretical 
morals,"  we  have  a  toil  and  struggle  to  make  an 
analytical  "  science  "-  of  what  is  simple  truth  from 
God  and  duty  for  man.  The  very  ingenuities  of  this 
are,  as  the  psalm  of  burial  sa3'S  of  old  age,  "  but 
labor  and  sorrow."  Thus  the  phrase  of  St.  Paul, 
^'a  law  unto  themselves,"  is  quoted  to  justify  this 
mechanical  notiou  of  some  "  law  "  in  morals  apart 
from  the  simple  will  of  God,  The  real  meaning  of 
this  has  been  fully  shown  before  (see  App.  C).  lief- 
crence  to  that  exposition  will  show  that  the  words 
give  no  support  whatever  to  the  notion  of  a  "  reign 
of  law  "  in  morals.  The  poverty  of  even  plausible 
references  for  this  theory  to  Holy  Writ,  is  also  shown 
in  repeated  citations  of  the  words  of  Abraham  (Gen. 
xviii.  25),  with  the  same  misapprehension  of  them 
that  has  been  already  exposed. 

P.  74.     He  inverts  the  truth  about  the  word  '*  law," 
assuming  the  misleading  misuse  of  it  in  modurn  times 
31 


S63         THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OF   LAW." 

to  be  the  primary  and  literal,  and  the  other  the 
figurative.  Thus :  "  As  simple  law  alvva^ys  has 
respect  to  force  acting  uniformly,  so  does  obligation 
or  moral  law,"  &c.,  p.  86-87.  Hero  we  have  this  good 
man  introducing  with  a  deprecatory  phrase  ("J/  we 
may  venture  to  speak  of  God  in  such  a  connection,") 
.which  does  not  at  all  excuse  the  presumption,  some 
reasonings  about  what  God  must  do  as  "  acting 
morally,"  because  a  man  ought  to  do  certain  things. 
It  is  the  same  blind  and  rash  folly  which  we  have 
noticed  before,  in  allotting  to  Our  Most  High  Lord 
what  He  may  be  and  do  because  otherwise  He  would 
not  have  a  '•  moral  character." 

The  XII.  Chapter,  of"  Conscience,"  begins  with  the 
universal  assumption  of  our  day  o£  conscience  as  some 
distinct  faculty  that  "  sets  up  a  tribunal,"  &c.  But 
this  whole  matter  is  fully  discussed  in  App.  G,  and 
to  that  I  refer  the  reader. 

Finally,  when  he  proceeds  to  treat  of  *'  Love,"  as 
was  inevitable  this  treatment  is  altogether  artificial 
and  erroneous.  He  seriously  analyzes  it  by  instances 
of  merely  incorrect  uses  of  the  word  in  no  way 
connected  with  its  real  and  primary  meaning  as  we 
have  it  in  the  great  law  of  man's  life.  What  has 
the  "love  of  food,  books,"  &c.  (see  p.  99)  to  do 
with  this?  Even  the  account  of  these  as  "only 
desire  "  is  incorrect ;  since  in  such  uses  *'  love  "  often 
means  also  and  mainly  enjoyment.  Chap.  II.  Div. 
II — which  treats  of  "  Complacent  Love/'  which  "is 
not  the  love  commanded  by  God,"  and  "Righteous 
Jndignation,"  is  another   instance   of  the  artificial 


"THE  LAW  OP  LOVE  AND  LOVE  AS  A  LAW."     363 

distinctions  and  false  reasonings  into  which  his 
wrong  theory  misleads  the  writer.  So  also  his 
laborious  speculation  as  to  *'  how  love  becomes  law." 
How  indeed?  Because  God  gives  it  as  the  law.  He 
made  me  to — and  bade  me — love.  But  this  blind 
"science,"  having  refused  to  see  the  central  truth 
that  all  law  is  simply  God's  will,  must  grope  after 
8ome  other  account  of  it. 

The  latter  half  of  the  book  is  occupied  with 
"Love  as  a  Law — Practical  Morals."  Its  "  prelimi- 
nary  statement,"  &c.,  of  this,  is  of  the  same  artificial 
and  needless  obscuring  of  a  simple  truth.  The 
"practical  morals  "  are  much  better  treated.  What 
is  said  is  usually  simple,  intelligible  and  just.  Yet 
how  much  better  than  any  science  is  the  simple 
teaching  of  duty  by  God's  Church  and  Word. 
Even  what  is  true  in  details  is  in  the  former  set  on  a 
lower  plane  of  action.  The  constant  effort  is  to 
make  the  love  of  God  only  a  nile  of  good,  instead  of 
that  very  good,  itself^*  the  fulfilling  of  the  law." 

[If  by  any  chance  what  has  just  been  said  should 
fall  under  the  eyes  of  the  venerable  and  venerated 
author  so  strongly  criticised,  the  present  writer  begs 
him  to  believe  that  he  has  said  only  what  he  thought 
needful  for  the  truth  which  Ave  both  seek,  and  shall 
ere  long  see  in  its  power  away  from  the  illusions  of 
this  life:  that  so  far  from  being  desirous,  or  even 
reckless,  of  8a3nng  something  to  wound  his  revered 
preceptor,  he  would  at  any  time  rather  be  among  the 
many  to  contribute  to  his  deserved  honors.] 


364  THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 


APPENDIX    F. 

REFLECTIONS     UPON     THE     MISUSE     AND      MISCHIEF     OF 
ABSTRACT  TERMS. 

ANY  one  whose  attention  is  called  by  whatso- 
ever suggestion  to  the  way  in  which  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  other  serious  writings  of  former  ages 
differ  from  those  of  our  time  in  regard  to  the  use  of 
abstract  words,  will  be  more  and  more  struck  with 
the  contrast  as  he  continues  the  comparison.  The 
whole  course  of  enquiry  in  this  book  is  an  illustration^ 
of  the  fact.  The  metaphysical  writers  whom  I  have 
occasion  to  quote  and  to  contrast  with  what  the 
Word  of  God  says  about  the  same  subjects,  usually: 
talk  of  "attributes,"  "principles,"  "laws,"  and  all 
manner  of  abstractions,  often  indeed  personifying 
them,  while  the  other  sort  speak  most  of  persons — of 
God  Himself,  and  such  of  His  creatures  as  He  has; 
made  to  know  Him.  This  neglect  of  persons  and 
supplying  their  place  by  personified  abstractions  is 
such  a  favorite  and  frequent  device  of  one  class  of 
writers  (as  e.  g.  in  the  "  Eeign  of  Law  ")  that  their 
pages  are  so  studded  with  capital  letters  as  to  sug- 
gest to  one  who  casually  opens  such  a  book  that  it  is 
historical  or  even  geographical  instead  of  philosophi- 
cal. In  any  writings  that  touch  upon  religion  we 
ought  indeed  often  to  find  capital  initials  of  such 
nouns  or  pronouns  as  represent  the  Sacred  Name; 
but  just  these  are  missing  where  the  others  abound. 


THE  MISUSE  AND  MISCHIEF  OP   ABSTRACT  TERMS.        365 

I  neither  attempt  to  triiverse  the  old  and  exton- 
eivc  field  of  discussion  as  to  the  nature  of  abstract 
terms,  nor  enquire  as  to  their  value  in  some  matters 
of  thought.  I  only  state  what  has  specially  como 
to  my  notice  in  this  enquiry  into  "Natural  Law"; 
that  the  excessive  and  all  but  exclusive  use  of  them 
now  in  treating  questions  of  duty  and  religion  is 
different  from  that  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  is  mis- 
leading and  irreligious  in  its  tendency. 

Indeed  these  suggestions  are  meant  not  so  much 
for  those  versed  in  metaphysics  as  for  the  mass  of 
intelligent  readers  who  meet  with  such  things  in  all 
that  is  now  written  for  general  reading,  and  who 
have  a  right  to  have  this  tendencj^  and  effect  ex- 
plained to  them.  I  shall  attempt  this  with  a  few 
instances  of  different  kinds,  in  addition  to  what  has 
been  pointed  out  in  the  book  about  the  misleading 
use  of  the  terms  "  Law,"  "  Mind,"  ''  Nature,"  &c. 

It  is  well,  however,  first  to  trace  what  seems  to  bo 
the  general  process  of  the  mischief.  To  do  this,  we 
must  at  once  discard  the  notion  of  Plato  and  all  tho 
mere  philosoj^hers,  that  the  only  cause  of  wrong 
opinions  is  ignorance,  and  that  men  only  need  to  bo 
shown  what  is  true  to  prefer  it  to  the  false.  Wo 
know  by  the  Word  of  God  and  real  universal  experi- 
ence, that  with  all  mankind,  self-conceit  and  selfish- 
ness, and  a  certain  perverse  dislike  to  some  religious 
truth,  interfere  with  the  convincing  force  of  what  is 
true.  Unless  we  wish  to  be  deceived,  wo  must 
always  counteract  these,  or  at  least  make  somo 
iiUowance  for  them. 


8CG  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD   NOT   "THE  llEIGN  OF   LAW." 

Thus  ^Yhcn,  with  tho  instinct  of  love  of  know- 
ledge WO  are  thinking  about  certain  subjects,  we 
rather  avoid  a  truth  which  is  painful  and  humiliating, 
and  turn  towards  thoughts  w^hich  please  and  flatter. 
In  this  case  the  mind  may  bo  ambitious  to  know,  and 
yet  not  truth-loving  enough  to  encounter  the  un- 
pleasant truth.  It  will  then  avail  itself  of  any 
artifices  of  language  which  seem  to  accomplish  this. 
A  most  efl'ective  device  of  the  kind,  whether  of 
indulgent  self-deception,  or  of  sophistry  meant  to 
mislead  others,  is  by  using  "  goodly  words  "  which 
appear  to  convey  truth  while  they  suppress  its  force. 
Abstract  terms  used  instead  of  the  real  personal 
words  are  most  effective  for  this.  They  are  capable 
of  diflPerent  shades  of  meaning.  They  make  a  fainter 
impression  of  reality,  or  an  altogether  false  one. 
Perversions  of  Christian  doctrine  resort  much  to 
them,  and  themselves  exist  as  "isms." 

Another  snare  of  men's  intelligence  is  in  their  self- 
conceit.  Pride  of  opinion  makes  them  uncandid. 
Flattery  betrays  their  judgment  when  nothing  else 
can.  No  other  flattery  is  so  seductive  as  that  which 
secures  our  own  minds  as  its  spokesman.  Abstract 
notions  are  rather  our  own  making,  and,  if  not 
warned  of  the  danger,  and  firm  in  self-denial,  we  are 
likely  to  prefer  them  to  tho  thought  of  tho  real 
persons  and  things  with  which  we  have  to  do.  They 
are  the  mist  and  twilight,  while  personal  words  are 
the  broad,  bright  day.  Tho  advocate  of  false  opinions 
finds  the  former  most  to  his  mind.  He  who  best 
comprehends  truth  and  duty,  prefers  the  others  ;  and 
we  sometimes  call  this  "  common  sense." 


THE  MISUSE   AND  MISCHIEF   OF  ABSTRACT  TERMS.        367 

That  very  word  "duty,"  in  its  right  use,  reminds 
us  of  another  way  in  which  abstract  words  are  mis- 
chievous. (I  say  in  its  right  use,  for  "  dut}',"  if  given 
out  by  itself  abstractly  as  some  great  law  or  law- 
giver or  executive,  becomes  an  instance  of  tho 
mischief)  Men  often  want  to  get  rid  of  their  duty, 
or  to  influence  other  men  to  neglect  theirs.  Now 
duty  is  intensely  personal.  It  has  been  most  wisely 
stated  and  comprehended  as  '^  my  duty  towards  God^ 
and  my  duty  towards  my  neighbor.^'  But  if  for  all 
those  powerfully  personal  words  we  can  substitute 
some  of  the  other  sort,  as  "  Providence,"  "  Omnipo- 
tence," "Law,"  "Mind";— ''Humanity"— "Society," 
or  even  "Man,"  the  force  of  duty  is  at  once  greatly 
weakened,  and  its  claims  retire  into  a  remote  distance. 

There  is  a  present  illustration  of  this  in  that  which 
after  religion  and  morals  (and  it  can  never  really  bo 
separated  from  them)  is  the  greatest  matter  of 
thought  for  men ;  that  is,  politics  under  a  free  gov- 
ernment. In  questions  about  laws  and  their  admin- 
istration wo  hear  much  now  of  "  capital "  and 
"labor."  All  the  dissertations  about  the  distress  of 
the  poor  and  danger  to  the  public  peace  from  this, 
and  all  the  speeches  of  those  who  have  most  to  say 
in  proposing  changes  of  existing  law,  abound  in 
these  terms.  The  simple  facts  are  that  in  every 
nation  there  are  some  men  who  are  owners  of 
property,  and  others  who  only  live  as  they  are 
employed  by  some  of  the  former:  that  sometimes 
these  wages  are  not  enough  to  give  a  decent  living 
to  the  laborers  and  their  families,  or  at  least  that 


868  THB  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

some  of  them  say  so;  that  even  at  times  some  can 
fia}^  "No  man  hath  hired  us,"  or  they  refuse  to 
work  at  all,  unless  for  higher  wages,  or  because  the 
employers  insist  upon  lower,  avid  even  beside  this 
prevent  any  who  are  willing  to  work  for  what  is 
offered,  from  taking  their  places  —  even  threaten  to 
take  the  owners'  property  and  divide  it  among 
themselves. 

On  the  other  hand  the  employing  class  are  often 
so  ostentatious  and  selfish  in  their  expensive  living, 
and  so  heartless  about  the  sufferings  of  the  poor, 
that  they  exasperate  the  anger  of  the  other  class 
and  irritate  their  impatience  and  envy  more  than 
would  be  otherwise.  And  as  the  great  fortunes  are 
not  usually  the  result  of  any  merit,  but  of  accidents 
of  increased  value  (or  even  "heaped  together"  by 
overreaching  and  cruel  hard  dealing)  of  the  present 
owners  or  their  forefathers,  a  certain  fierce  sense  of 
justice  reinforces  the  rage  with  which  men  who  have 
not  food  or  clothes  enough,  regard  the  well  to-do. 
Thus,  while  the  one  set  complain  and  threaten,  the 
others  denounce  them  as  seeking  to  rob  their  betters, 
and  so  as  enemies  of  peace  and  law.  All  this  is  said 
to  be  a  "conflict  between  Labor  and  Capital." 

Now  there  are  no  such  persons  as  these.  There 
are  even  ilo  organized  societies  of  persons,  named 
"  Labor  "  and  *'  Capital  "  which  are  contending.  And 
yet  the  actual  dispute  is  of  living  persons  according 
to  their  interests  and  feelings.  It  is  one  of  the 
incidents  of  the  controversy  that  in  modern  times, 
many  owners  of  property  join   together  in  partner- 


THE  MISUSE   AND  MISCHIEF  OP   ABSTRACT  TERMS.        36& 

ships  and  stock  companies  which  employ  the  labor- 
ers; and  that  the  latter  sometimes  combine  in 
*'  Trades  Unions  "  and  the  like,  so  as  to  contend  with 
effect  against  the  power  of  wealth.  On  the  other 
hand,  too,  there  are  now  many  more  who  own  little 
tracts  of  land,  and  till  them  with  their  own  labor, 
than  was  the  case  in  earlier  ages.  Yet,  after  all,  it 
is  none  the  less  a  simple  question  about  the  rights 
and  duties  of  men  towards  one  another.  The  law  of 
love  forbids  any  to  use  the  labor  of  another  without 
a  fair  return,  or  to  see  him  suffer  in  any  way  in 
order  that  we  may  enjoy  ourselves.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  forbids  the  poor  to  invade  the  sacred  rights 
of  property.  It  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  and 
also,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet" — thus  requiring  us  all 
to  be  patient  and  contented.  Human  laws  which 
proceed  from  this  duty,  and  are  meant  to  carry  it  out, 
are  useful  to  some  extent.  But  without  that  divine 
law  and  its  personal  duty,  they  can  do  no  good 
whatever:  the  selfish  cunning  or  violence  of  men 
will  evade  or  pervert  all  their  provisions.  If  personal 
duty  is  enough  regarded,  there  will  be  no  need  of  the 
laws  whatever. 

But  make  of  it  all  a  "  conflict  of  Labor  and 
Capital,"  and  all  attention  is  turned  from  what  you 
and  I  ought  to  do,  to  observing  the  fight  between 
these  huge  genii,  and  to  curiositj^  about  its  result. 
Some  set  to  work  to  write  pamphlets  or  newspaper 
articles.  Preachers  take  sides  with  one  or  other  of 
the  combatants,  or  impartially  and  safely  belabor 
them    both.      Legislators    make    speeches,    appoint 


370  THE   REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

committees  and  pass  laws.  This  deceives  everybody 
with  a  great  appearance  of  wisdom  and  earnestness 
without  reaching  any  man's  sense  of  duty.  Each 
one  feels  that  he  has  done  his  part  by  making  or 
hearing  a  discourse  about  "the  relations  of  capital 
and  labor,"  or  helping  to  pass  a  law.  It  even  dulls 
what  feeling  of  duty  to  G-od  and  man  there  was 
before.  Many  a  one  who  directly  or  through  the 
officers  of  a  stock  company  has  been  ** grinding  the 
faces  of  the  poor,"  and  had  some  uneasy  sense  that 
this  was  wicked,  dismisses  this  feeling  after  hearing 
a  profound  discourse  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  about  "Labor 
and  Capital";  and  so  some  good  workman  who  has 
been  resisting  the  temptation  to  be  furiously  discon- 
tented and  envious  when  he  compared  his  anxious 
and  narrow  living  with  the  purple  and  fine  linen  of  a 
railroad  president,  gives  up  to  the  unhappy  feeling 
after  he  has  read  the  speech  of  the  Hon.  C.  D.,  who 
informs  him  that  he  represents  the  angel  Labor 
fighting  against  the  demon  Capital. 

The  same  immoral  self-deceit  now  penetrates  all  our 
politics  by  means  of  party  spirit,  and  is  such  a 
wicked  treachery  to  truth  and  justice,  and  such  an 
affront  to  the  Just  One  by  whose  name  and  authority 
our  governments  have  any  right  to  command  obedi- 
ence, that  wise  men  may  well  fear  what  will  soon  come 
upon  us  as  a  people  if  it  is  not  reformed.  Allowing 
the  most  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  parties  in  a  free 
nation,  it  is  certain  that  truth  and  just  dealing  are 
the  acts  of  individual  men  ;  that  falsehood,  treachery, 
false  Bweariniic  and    other  violations   of  law  in   its 


THE   MISUSE   AND   MISCHIEF   OP  ABSTKACT  TERMS.        371 

letter  or  intent  are  the  sins  of  this  and  that  man  — 
are  so  known  and  judged  by  God  and  should  be  by 
their  fellow-men. 

Butif  evil-doers  can  lay  such  things  off  of  themselves 
upon  their  "  great  party,"  if  others  who  enjoy  their 
party  success  by  the  same  means  can  connive  at  it, 
and  even  their  angry  antagonists  (from  this  evil 
fashion  and  a  hope  to  succeed  by  like  means  in  their 
turn)  think  only  of  abhorring  and  punishing  the 
other  "party,"  the  moral  sense  of  all  is  stupefied. 
Eight  and  wrong,  in  this  vary  solemn,  and  in  a  sense 
divine,  matter  of  law,  become  empty  words  to  repre 
sent  the  selfish  struggles  of  two  sets  of  men  for 
place. 

Thus  might  be  seen  the  awful  spectacle  of  men 
who  lie,  swear  falsely,  and  greedily  enjoy  the  pay 
and  honor  of  high  offices  to  which  they  have  no 
right,  getting  to  be  the  representatives  and  adminis- 
trators of  sacred  law  by  means  of  outrages  upon 
that  law.  And  then  the  only  criminal  is  supposed 
to  be  that  impersonal  thing,  one  of  '*  the  two  great 
parties,"  while  the  actual  guilty  wretches  are  pun- 
ished—  bj^  not  only  enjoying  the  stolen  pay  and 
power,  but  by  all  '*  good  citizens"  calling  upon 
them  to  pay  their  "  respects,'' — religious  bodies  and 
journals  making  obeisance  to  these  representatives  of 
the  "  majesty  of  the  law,"  and  great  crowds  gathering 
to  salute  them  with  acclamations  !  Finally,  the  little 
fraction  of  shame  which  evil-doers  thus  share  with 
their  "  party  "  can  be  escaped  at  any  time  by  a  man's 
slipping  away  from  his  party  under  pretext  of  some 


573  THE  UKIGN  OF  GOD  NOT  "THE  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

*'  new  issue,"  and  reappearing  on  the  other  side  to 
"denounce"  the  very  things  he  has  abetted  and 
profited  by. 

All  these  are  great  results  of  the  use  of  language 
in  such  a  way  as  to  hide  from  men  their  real  duties 
and  responsibilities.  They  are  even  more  note- 
worthy as  indications  of  spiritual  tendencies  which 
affect  our  spiritual  welfare  yet  more  directly.  For 
we  ought  to  return  at  last  to  what  is  of  more  conse- 
quence than  all  else,  the  common  use  of  abstract 
words  to  obscure  our  personal  knowledge  of  God. 
That  this  is  the  powerful  tendency  of  the  prevailing 
fashion  of  writing  about  "Nature,"  ''Mind,"  "Law," 
&c.,  has  been  sufficiently  shown  (see  Chaps.  I.  and 
XYII.  and  App.  F).  I  think  I  ought^  however,  to  add 
this  final  expostulation  with  those  religious  writers 
who  argue  with  much  toil  that  God  is  a  person  and 
then  sit  down  breathless  and  exhausted,  yet  as 
though  they  had  achieved  all  that  was  needed. 
Whereas  if  they  stop  short  with  this  they  have  not 
even  proved  that  much.  Nothing  less  than  to  see 
and  make  others  see  that  Ho  is  the  Person,  can 
establish  religious  faith  ;  and  this  can  never  be  done 
along  with  the  personifying  of  "Nature"  and  the 
fatal  concession  of  a  "  Reiirn  of  Law." 


THE   ETERNITY  AND  SELF-EXISTENCE  OP   GOD.  373 


APPENDIX  G. 

A    MEDITATION    UPON    THE    ETERNITY    AND    SELF- 
EXISTENCE    OF    GOD    AND    THE    MODERN 
THEORY   OF    "CONSCIENCE." 

I  CANNOT  remember  when  I  did  not  hear  and 
think  of  God.  Some  such  things  which  I 
heard  I  now  perceive  were  not  wisely  said  to  me, 
and  my  own  thoughts  of  the  Great  One  have  not 
always,  no,  nor,  as  I  suppose,  really  ever  been  entirely 
true.  The  more  I  do  think  and  really  know,  the 
more  certain  this  is  to  me.  Thus  I  never  began  to 
have  thought  of  Him  or  grew  to  have  wiser  thought 
by  reasonings  about  my  own  consciousness  or  about 
*' causation."  So  also  I  cannot  imagine  that  the 
suggestion  of  Him  as  unseen,  yet  everywhere— that 
He  is  infinitely  above  me,  yet  I  always  in  his  pres- 
ence,— that  he  was  *'  before  all  worlds,"  and  me  as  an 
insignificant  part  of  this  Creation  "  by  the  word  of 
his  power," — I  cannot  imagine  that  this  thought 
once  entering  my  mind,  could  ever  leave  that  mind 
as  if  it  had  never  been  there,  or  nw  thoughts  about 
^'  the  things  that  are  seen,"  merely  what  they  would 
be  without  that.  Nor  can  I  conceive  that  the  first 
man's  child  (and  so  each  successive  generation  fol- 
lowing) could  ever  fail  to  have  that  thought  of  God 
in  some  guise  or  disguise,  mentioned  to  it  among 
the  first  things  spoken  to  its  opening  soul,  and  thus 
have  the  world  around  it  and  all  life  different  from 
what  it  would  be  without  an}-  thought  of  God. 
32 


374  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   RETGN   OF  LAW.' 

For  I  see  plainly  by  all  my  own  experience,  that 
it  is  in  this  sense  that  '*  the  Heavens  declare  the 
glory  of  God,"  and  that  "the  invisible  things  of 
Him  from  the  (time  of  the)  Creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead."  It  is 
just  in  proportion  as  I  already  know  of  Him  that  I 
behold  Him  in  all  things.  I  can — I  blush  to  confess 
it — see  all  these  glorious  things  without  a  thought  of 
*' His  handiwork  " — that  is  if  I  am  all  intent  upon 
what  is  w^orldly,  even  in  the  most  innocent  sense. 
x\nd  so  in  degree  as  I  habitually,  or  from  some 
special  suggestion  (of  my  reading,  worship,  or 
another's  words)  have  just  been  thinking  of  Him,  do 
I  see  Him  in  all  other  things  visible  or  invisible. 
Much  more  then  would  man  never  have  discovered 
religion,  and  still  less  the  true  religion  merely  by 
what  he  saw  or  thought. 

But  now  giving  myself  up  to  true  thoughts  of  God 
according  to  all  this  light  of  the  true  religion  and 
knowledge  of  His  works,  I  see — I  feel  more  and 
more  the  immense  distance  between  myself  with  all 
that  I  admire,  and -ffim.  The  things  of  beauty  or 
power,  of  sweetness  or  light,  of  truth  or  love,  in 
which  I  exult  most  with  consciousness,  or  that  most 
attract  mo  from  without — all  are  far  —  so  far  below 
Him.  The  more  I  see  of  this  greatest  truth,  the 
more  profound  becomes  my  humility.  It  also  ex. 
poses  my  own  perverseness,  which  must  be  odious  to 
Him  whose  favor  is  more  than  mere  life  to  mo,  and 
plunges  me  into  deeper  humiliation.     All  that  is  best 


THE   ETERNITY  AND  SELF-EXISTENCE   OP   GOD.  375 

in  me  then  revolts  at  the  thought  of  false  religion — 
that  God  is  only  like  an  all-powerful  man,  or  that  this 
Divine  power  is  divided  up  among  a  number  of  such 
imperfect  persons,  or  that  there  is  no  persoji,  God, — 
that  this  word  is  only  a  word  to  represent  all  being^ 
life  and  motion. 

So  my  wisest  thoughts  all  tell  me  that  not  only  is 
He  much  more  a  person  than  I,  of  thought,  will,  and 
affection, — not  only  more  than  all  this  in  man  without 
his  faults  at  his  best, — but  that  His  eternal  life  and 
power  are  something  to  which  nothing  we,  nor  any 
other  of  His  creatures,  nor  all  of  His  Creation  to- 
gether, can  have  any  likeness.  Yet  Ho  tells  me  in 
His  Word  and  repeats  in  the  very  person  of  the 
God-man  who  has  come  to  restore  the  blessedness  of 
the  first  Creation,  what  He  told  us  of  that  in  the 
beginning,  that  He  "  created  man  in  His  own  image." 

We  might  indeed  pervert  this  wonderful  truth  and 
abuse  this  vast  blessing  of  nature  and  knowledge, 
by  arguing  from  it  that  God  is  altogether  such  as 
we  are,  and  that  we  know  what  He  does  by  reason- 
ing of  what  men  do.  This  is  as  much  against  my 
real  reason,  and  against  His  Word,  as  for  mo  to  make 
unto  myself  a  graven  image  of  a  man  for  my  religion, 
and  fall  down  and  worship  that. 

But  my  soul,  so  little  and  weak,  and  in  this  com- 
parison even  more  of  such  evil  will,  wearies  and  faints 
in  all  its  reasonings.  "Such  knowledge  is  too  won- 
derful for  me  :  it  is  high  :  I  cannot  (by  my  own 
thoughts)  attain  unto  it."  Then  it  finds  rest  and 
new  strength  in  His  own  words  to  me  about  Himself. 


376  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD   NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 


And  does  He  say  that  I  am  to  understand  His  will, 
His  works,  His  essential  life,  by  studying  Hi» 
*'  image  "  in  myself?  No  ;  not  once  have  I  any  such 
suggestion  from  Him  ;  I  am  even  forbidden  to  do  this 
as  a  presumptuous  and  self-deceiving  folly.  All  that 
I  thus  learn  of  "  His  Eternal  Power  and  Godhead,*^ 
discloses  a  Person  who  is  far  above  even' our  greatest 
words  of  expression.  Among  such  I  now  array 
before  my  memory  these  : 

"  I  Am  that  I  Am."  "  He  spake,  and  it  was  done." 
"For  of  Him,  and  through  Him,  and  to  Him,  are  all 
things,  to  whom  be  glory  forever."  "iVll  things  were 
created  by  Him,  and /o?' Him  ;  and  He  is  before  all 
things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist."  ''The  Blessed 
and  only  Potentate."  "  Upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  His  power."  "  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to 
receive  glory  and  honor  and  power;  for  Thou  hast 
created  all  things,  and  for  Thy  pleasure  they  are  and 
were  created."  "  I  am  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
Beginning  and  the  End — the  First  and  the  Last." 
Then  my  soul  rests  in  this  most  glorious  and  happy 
truth,  that  all  things  are  good  merely  because  they 
are  His  will :  especially  that  He  is  my  ultimate  and 
all-including  good,  because  He  has  made  me  to  love 
Him  with  all  my  heart. 

But  if  some  fellow-man  say  to  me  that  this  is  not 
enou2:h  for  his  obedience  unless  he  can  also  believe 
that  what  is  commanded  is  true,  just  and  kind;  or 
that  if  he  had  reason  from  "  eternal  principles  "  to 
believe  this,  it  would  be  as  good  or  better  ground  for 
his  obedience  than  the  mere  will  of  God  ;  then  I  ask 


TOE  ETERNITY  AND  SELF  EXISTENCE  OP  GOD.  377 

with  surprise,  what  can  be  true,  just  or  kind,  except 
aa  it  is  God's  will  ?  IIow  came  you  to  have  such 
thoughts  except  as  He  chose  to  make  you  what  you 
are  ?  Did  some  "  Supreme  Being  "  before  Him  estab- 
lish "  eternal  principles  "  and  then  make  Him  subject 
to  them?  Or  did  He  find  Himself  from  all  eternity 
surrounded  by  and  subject  to  them  ?  Then  they 
rather  than  He  are  "  the  First  and  the  Last."  How 
are  you  wiser  in  this  notion  than  those  who  will  have 
it  that  God  found  Himself  always  in  His  eternity  with 
eternal  matter  (and  its  laws)  about  Him,  and  so  is 
not  creator,  but  only  "  contriver  "  and  **  adjuster"  of 
that  which  has  as  much  self-existence  as  He  ?  Nay, 
there  is  something  nobler,  greater,  and  more  real 
than  an  "  eternal  principle,"  and  that  is  the  Eternal 
Person,  of  whose  all-including  will  such  principles 
are  but  instances. 

-  Even  now,  following  this  supreme  truth,  if  He 
show  me  Eis  will  in  His  Word  that  I  shall  believe 
in ''eternal  principles"  upon  which  my  duty  rests, 
and  not  merely  upon  that  blessed  will,  I  will  submit 
what  seems  my  highest  reason  to  that.  But  no. 
^*The  commandments  (ponder  that  word) — the  will^ 
the  love  of  God :  "  these  are  the  simplest  and  the 
perfect  expression  of  all  my  duty.  If  I  may  "go 
back  "  ^f  that,  then  my  questioning  will  be  that 
which  is  sometimes  related  of  a  little  child  who  has 
been  told  that  God  made  all  things  :  *'  And  who  made 
<TOd?"  I  doubt  if  even  the  thoughtlessness  of  child- 
hood ever  asked  this  in  simplicity.  But  even  if  so, 
it  accepted  with  satisfied  assent,  this  true  answer: 


378        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD  NOT  "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

"No  one:  God  always  was;  it  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  tliat  Ho  made  everything  else."  In  the  Ono 
Eternal  Person  and  in  Him  alone  we  all  alil^e  tind 
the  ultimate  fact  and  the  ultimate  reason  of  all. 
Wo  say  G-od's  Will;  but  really  His  will  in  action  is 
His  Eternal  Self,  as  His  will  for  my  obedience  is 
Himself  for  mo  to  love  and  enjoy  *'as  long  as  I  have 
any  being." 

The  Modern  Theory  op  "Conscience." — All  truth 
known  is  God's  word  ;  all  truth  done  is  God's  will. 
Among  the  deviations  from  this  simplicity  of  true 
religion  into  which  the  self-confident  reasonings  of 
modern  Christendom  have  long  been  straying,  until 
these  are  taken  for  granted  as  a  part  of  the  Christian 
faith,  is  this  notion  of  conscience  as  "  a  tribunal  set 
up  within  each  man" — "the  voice  of  God  in  his 
soul,"  etc.,  etc.  This  deserves  a  very  thorough  dis- 
cussion more  complete  than  is  possible  here.  Yet  it 
will  be  VGvy  useful  and  hardly  dispensable  in  the 
present  work,  to  give  what  follows,  holding  myself 
in  readiness  at  any  suitable  time  to  supply  omissions, 
and  state  more  fully  much  in  which  I  have  given 
results  rather  than  researches. 

In  the  first  place  let  us  consider  that  there  is  an 
ethical  sj'stem  of  the  Holy  Gospels  which  is  jiiultless 
and  complete.  This  is,  as  Our  Lord  most  plainly 
teaches,  that  God  has  made  man  to  do  His  will  in 
perfect  love,  and  has  informed  him  of  that  will  from 
the  first  by  His  word :  that  in  fact  we  are  all  averse 
;to  this  truth  and  happiness;  and  that  Ho  came  to 


THE  ETERNITY  AND   SELF- EXISTENCE  OP  GOD.  379 

restore  the  truth  perfectly,  to  restore  us  by  pardon 
and  a  new  birth  to  that  perfect  love. 

When  He  describes  His  own  life  in  this  world, 
*^  without  sin,"  He  makes  no  mention  of  "  conscience," 
but  of  **  doing  the  will  of  God."  When  He  describes 
goodness  in  other  men,  it  is  "  whosoever  shall  do  tho 
will  of  God,"  and  the  like.  When  He  tells  how  men 
imow  what  they  ought  to  do,  it  is  "God's  words," 
or  "the  commandments  of  God,"  not  as  of  some 
"inward  light"  of  a  "conscience."  He  says,  "I  am 
the  light  of  the  world  ;"  just  as  it  was  also  declared 
of  Him  :  **  This  is  that  Light  which  coming  into  tho 
world  enlighteneth  every  man."  [And  yet  Christian 
scholars,  seizing  upon  the  mistaken  rendering  of  our 
English  Bible,  have  inverted  this  to  prove  their  false 
notion  of  conscience.]  "  This  is  the  condemnation, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved 
darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were 
■evil."  True  light  then  is  not  something  within  us 
as  an  essential  part  of  each  man's  soul :  it  must 
-come  to  us  all  from  without  —  "  from  above." 

So,  on  His  way  to  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  Ho  says 
-expressly,  that  tho  man  who  tries  to  walk  without 
this  heavenl}^  illumination,  "  stumbleth,  because 
there  is  no  light  in  him.''  And  as  before  the  Sun  of 
Eighteousness  rose  here  the  heavenly  light  of  the 
first  revelation  to  men  still  lingered  as  stars  shine  at 
midnight,  so  the  glorious  Gospel  was  not  to  be  lost 
-to  us  by  His  Death  and  Ascension  ;  "  but  the  Com- 
forter which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc..  He  shall  teach 
.you  all  things,"  etc.     Do  not  the  zealous  Christians 


380        THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

who  make  the  notion  of  "  conscience  "  in  each  man 
which  is  the  **  voice  of  God  "  to  him,  an  important 
part  of  their  religion,  usurp  for  it  what  belongs  to 
the  Third  Holy  One  ? 

It  is  only  as  plainly  taught  by  the  Word  of  God 
that  I  would  venture  thus  to  correct  the  mistake  of 
so  many  learned  and  devout  writers,  and  which 
indeed  by  their  authority  is  so  universally  allowed, 
that  this  argument  will  at  first  find  scarce  any 
approval,  and  general  astonishment  if  not  censure. 
Yet  some  of  the  ablest  advocates  of  this  personal 
"  conscience  "  unconsciously  concede  that  it  is  not 
what  Holy  Writ  teaches,  as  when  Dean  Mansel  (Lim. 
of  Eelig.  Thought,  p.  202)  speaks  of  Bishop  Butler 
as  he  who  has  "  most  contributed  to  establish  the 
supreme  authority  of  Conscience  in  man."  The 
writer  of  the  article  "  Conscience  "  in  Blunt's  Theol. 
Diet,  admits  that  the  idea  was  unknown  to  the  most 
intellectual  people  of  the  old  world  ;  and  then  assum- 
ing to  find  it  in  Holy  Scripture,  so  miserably  fails  in 
such  citations  as  to  strengthen  the  proof  of  the 
opposite  which  I  have  already  given.  And  now 
"Kev.  Joseph  Cook"  with  a  great  display  of  all 
sorts  of  "ologies"  to  convince  applauding  crowds 
that  the  unbelievers  cannot  use  these  wonderful 
things  to  triumph  over  him,  with  this  makes  the 
most  extravagant  assumptions  about  "conscience," 
and  the  most  impassioned  appeals  to  it,  as  if  it  were 
•the  corner-stone  of  Christian  faith,  instead  of  a  meta- 
physical fiction  "  rather  repugnant  "  thereto. 

Before  we  proceed  with  a  further  examination  of 


THE  ETERNITY  AND   SELF-EXISTENCE  OP  GOD.  381 

the  Holy  Scriptures,  let  me  make  sure  of  not  being 
misunderstood.  Bishop  Butler  is  greutly  to  bo 
valued  and  reverenced  for  his  incomparable  Analogy 
and  Sermons.  That  he  erred  in  this  theory  of  "  Con- 
science "  is  a  small  matter  compared  with  his  great 
merit,  especially  in  one  who  lived  in  that  coldly  and 
unspiritually  intellectual  age,  which  could  not  but 
influence  all  its  writers,  though  he  broke  away  so 
much  from  its  stupors  and  illusions.  It  is  just  to 
him  however  to  say  that  he  did  not  carry  the  notion 
to  the  positiveness  and  elaboration  which  now  pre- 
vails, and  as  its  present  champions  impute  it  all  to 
bira.  His  masterly  caution  and  far-seeing  wisdom 
of  argument  are  to  be  seen  all  through  the  three 
"  Sermons  upon  Human  Nature."  He  almost  always 
speaks  of  ^'reflection  or  conscience,"  once  even  of  it 
as  only  "reflection."  This  shows  that  it  was  still  in 
his  mind  a  question  whether  he  was  not  (as  he  was) 
making  of  the  use  of  our  minds  and  wills  upon  moral 
truth,  instead  of  other  knowledge  or  choice,  a  separate 
faculty,  or  even  another  person  within  and  beside 
our  spirits.  His  followers  and  admirers  have  no 
doubts  and  make  no  such  qualifications. 

Nor  do  I  for  a  moment  deny  that  elsewhere  than 
in  the  Gospels  the  English  word  "  conscience "  is 
found  in  our  version  of  the  New  Testament.  To 
that  we  will  soon  give  especial  attention,  and  see  if 
it  reveals  the  present  notion  and  use  of  that  word, 
though  as  has  been  shown,  Our  Lord  said  nothing  of 
it  in  His  personal  ministry.  Yet  by  this  first  inquiry 
we  are  much  better  fitted   to  enter  upon  the  other. 


382  THE  REIGN    OP   GOD  NOT  "THE   KEIGN   OF  LAW." 

"We  can  best  understand  the  precepts  of  our  duty 
and  the  allusions  to  our  relations  to  God  with 
which  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  abound,  bj''  tho- 
great  and  simple  truth  of  all  things  which  their 
Lord  and  ours  uttered  as  He  went  about  doing  good^ 
It  is  far  more  probable  that  they  will  thus  more 
fully  illustrate  and  give  details  of  the  principles  Ha 
has  first  revealed,  than  that  only  by  them  were  those 
chief  principles  of  our  moral  nature  disclosed. 
What  a  low  conception  that  would  be  of  the  Light 
of  the  world?  What  blindness  and  dumbness  about 
the  chief  things  in  man's  nature  on  tho  part  of  Him 
whom,  not  by  inspiration  of  another,  but  of  eternal 
and  creative  vision,  "knew  what  was  in  man."  W& 
cannot  escape  from  this  conclusion  by  saying  that 
He  announced  the  absolute  truth,  but  left  it  to  His. 
servants  to  state  it  in  "  a  scientific  "  form.  For  we 
are  assuming  that  to  be  primary  truth  of  which  Ha 
made  no  utterance. 

We  may  now  say  briefly  and  in  general  of  all  the- 
passages  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  in  which  the  Eng- 
lish word  conscience  occurs,  that  it  is  of  course  of  no 
authority  at  all  except  as  it  represents  the  word 
divinely  inspired  in  the  original  language.  The 
Greek  w^ord  of  the  original  is  the  same  in  each  of 
these,  (70'^eidrj(Tiq,  It  is  a  well-known  word  of  evi- 
dent derivation,  and  which  had  had  a  fixed  meaning 
in  that  language  for  five  hundred  years.  Why  then 
should  -we  not  translate  it  in  that  sense?  That  is- 
the  fair  way,  unless  for  some  very  good  reason,  as 
that  it  is  without  meaning  in  that  use,  or  the  like,. 


THE   ETERNITY   AND   SELF  EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  383 

we  must  suppose  that  St.  John  and  St.  Luke  meant 
eomething  else.  And  this  I  suppose  is  just  what  our 
translators  meant  to  do;  for  conscience  in  English 
{conscientia  in  Latin,)  at  first  meant  just  that. 

Thus  (Tuvtidrj(Tt<;  in  classic  Greek  means  simply 
«elf-knowledge,  the  perception  of  what  passes  or  has 
passed  in  our  own  thoughts,  whether  it  be  about  our 
-opinion  of  some  one  else's  character,  our  notice  of 
flome  passing  event,  or  our  reflection  upon  some 
choice  which  we  have  now  to  make,  or  our  recollec- 
tion and  judgment  of  something  that  we  did  once,  or 
that  some  one  else  did.  This  is  also  just  what 
conscientia  meant  in  Latin,  and  conscience  in  French 
and  English,  and  for  which  we  have  at  a  later 
period  provided  the  term  consciousness  to  replace  the 
former  word,  uo\v  entirely  appropriated  by  a  new 
notion  in  regard  to  men's  thoughts  about  their  duty. 

Evidently  then,  conscience  first  included  all  our 
notice  and  recollection  of  our  thoughts,  whether 
about  matters  of  knowledge,  of  choice  and  action  in 
things  merely  expedient,  or  of  truth  and  duty  to 
Ood  and  to  man.  As  it  included  so  much,  we  might 
render  it  in  different  cases  by  various  equivalent 
expressions,  as  "self-knowledge,"  "  inward  thought," 
^*  self-judgment,"  "  reflection,"  &c.  (This  last  even 
Bishop  Butler  uses  as  equivalent,  and  to  bring  it 
outside  of  our  prepossessions  in  the  present  use  of 
terms  according  to  prevailing  notions,  wo  will  also 
try  its  sense  in  the  three  passages  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  by  also  substitu- 
ting that,  to  see  whether  we  must  find  a  new  mean- 


384  THE  REIGN  OF  GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

ing  for  ffuvsidfjffi^,  because  its  force  in  usual  Greek 
would  convey  no  meaning,  or  an  evidently  false  one. 
And  here  I  would  remark  that  nothing  can  be  more 
unsafe  (not  to  say  uncandid)  than  in  our  understand- 
ing of  the  New  Testament,  to  depart  from  the  real 
meaning  of  Greek  words  in  other  writings,  whenever 
that  would  give  a  sense  contrary  to  our  doctrinal 
prepossessions,  and  set  up  a  "New  Testament  Greek  " 
to  accord  with  them.  Who  could  not  do  this,  and 
upon  this  sacred  authority  contend  for  any  notions, 
instead  of  searching  these  Holy  Scriptures  for  ivhat 
to  believe  ?) 

The  English  of  these  three  passages  thus  given  is 
as  follows  :  "  And  they,  &c.,  being  convicted  by  their 
own  self-knowledge  (or  reflection),"  &c.  "  I  have  lived 
in  all  good  self-knowledge  (reflection,  observation 
and  memory  of  my  own  conduct,)  unto  this  day." 
■"And  herein  do  I  exercise  myself  to  have  a  good 
self-knowledge  (reflection  and  recollection  of  my 
conduct)  toward  God  and  toward  man."  That  is  an 
entirely  intelligible  and  natural  statement,  and  is 
■evidently  what  was  meant  to  be  said.  It  agrees 
w^ith  the  simple  truth  of  Our  Lord's  teaching  as  we 
have  just  studied.  He  addressed  us  as  having  intelli- 
gence and  free  will,  and  having  been  made  to  apply 
these  above  all,  and  including  all  (other  things  only 
existing  to  promote  that  end)  to  know  and  love  Him 
and  do  His  will,  in  which  is  contained  the  just  and 
generous  love  of  all  our  fellow-men.  He  nowhere 
tells  us  that  beside  the  power  of  thinking  and  acting 
in  virtue  of  which  we  are  persons  at  all,  we  have 


THE   ETERNITY  AND   SELF  EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  385 

another  knowing  and  choosing  faculty  applied  to 
our  duties,  and  which  itself  tells  us  these  duties, 
rewards  or  punishes  us  as  we  behave,  is  a  sort  of  other 
person  of  ourselves,  and  yet  arbitrates  among  our 
other  thoughts,  ought  to  be  first  and  always  obeyed, 
is  our  ver}^  selves,  and  yet  is  even  the  Divine  Person 
Himself  speaking  to  us — all  this  which  modern 
ethics  tell  us  of,  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  says  nothing 
of  in  the  Gospels,  but  speaks  to  men  as  if  having 
simply  a  mind  to  knov/  His  truth  as  well  as  other 
knowledge,  a  heart  to  love  God  as  well  as  other 
persons,  a  will  to  choose  in  these  as  well  as  in  the 
inferior  things  of  life.  Thus  the  condemning  self- 
knowledge  of  the  wicked  Pharisee,  or  the  acquitting 
self-knowledge  of  St.  Paul,  proves  nothing  about  the 
supposed  "  conscience  "  of  the  metaphysicians. 

The  same  general  observations  apply  to  the  use  of 
the  term  aiovsid-qatq  (conscience)  in  the  Epistles.  In 
more  than  half  of  them  we  have  but  to  substitute 
the  primary  meaning,  as  self-knowledge,  *'  conscious- 
ness "  or  "  reflection,"  and  we  have  a  clear  and  the 
evidently  true  meaning  of  the  wu'iter.  Of  some 
others,  w^hich  we  will  examine  in  detail,  this  may 
not  at  first  be  so  clear.  But  some  things  are  plain 
from  the  first:  (1)  that  there  is  in  the  Epistles  no 
such  precise  account  of  conscience  in  their  sense,  as 
some  modern  books  contain,  or  of  any  such  separate 
faculty  of  man  under  any  other  term.  (2)  There  is 
no  such  precept  as  all  these  contain,  that  a  man 
ought  to  "  obey  the  dictates  of  his  conscience."  They 
speak  of  us  just  as  Our  Lord  docs  in  the  Gospels,  as 
33 


386  THE   REIGN    OF   GOD  NOT   "THE   HEIGN   OF   LAW." 

able  to  know  God  and  His  commands,  and  that  all 
duty  and  goodness  is  to  love  Him  and  do  His  will  or 
"  glorify  "  Him  ;  not  suggesting  to  us  to  look  beyond 
this  Divine  will  for  some  "  eternal  principle,"  or 
listen  to  any  self-teaching  of  a  "conscience,"  but 
"  bear  the  Word  of  God  and  keep  it." 

But  how  then,  some  may  say,  are  we  to  understand 
what  St.  Paul  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Komans  of 
those  who  are  "a  law  unto  themselves,  etc. — their 
conscience  also  bearing  witness,  etc,"  and  in  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  viii-x.  about  regarding 
other  men's  "consciences"  in  respect  to  idol  worship? 
So  far  as  the  word  in  question  is  concerned,  whoever 
will  carefully  construe  it  in  all  these  passages  by  its 
simple  and  original  meaning,  will  find  the  difficulty 
disappear.  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  St.  Paul  did 
distinctly  teach  us  of  a  separate  part  of  man's  spirit- 
ual nature  which  infallibly  teaches  every  soul  of  our 
race  its  duty,  and  whose  "  dictates  "  ought  to  be 
instantly  and  implicitly  obeyed  by  each  one  of  us, 
that  is  a  great  matter  of  religion.  At  least  it  proves 
that  either  his  '* ethical  teaching"  was  diiferent 
from  Our  Lord's,  or  that  we  must  add  to  the  latter  a 
fact  and  principle  of  which  it  was  unconscious,  and 
which  seems  to  have  with  it  no  agreement.  What 
adds  to  the  seriousness  of  this  question,  is  that  the 
great  Bishop  Butler  has  chosen  that  sentence  of  St. 
Paul  as  the  motto  and  even  foundation  proof  of  that 
argument  for  conscience  in  the  present  received 
sense  which  all  others  have  followed.  (Not  that  it 
was  not  a  received  notion  long  before  his  time,  as  I 


THE   ETERNITY  AND   SELF-EXISTENCE  OF   GOD.  387 

may  trace  its  rise  in  another  place;  but  Butler  is  the 
great  formulator  and  authority  for  it,  the  citation  of 
whose  words  is  supposed  to  close  all  arguments.) 

If  the  passage  of  St.  Paul  does  affirm  the  statement 
in  question,  it  must  do  so  in  express  and  plain  words, 
or  at  least  by  necessary  inference.  That  is,  it  must 
not  fairly  admit  of  any  other  rendering  which  does 
not  contain  that  statement,  but  rather  accords  with 
the  opposite  opinion.  We  have  already  seen  that 
there  is  such  another  rendering  which  I  make  bold 
to  say  will  bear  any  examination  and  only  appear 
the  more  as  what  the  writer  meant.  But  if  it  were 
only  of  two  such  interpretations  of  equal  merit,  it 
would  deserve  the  preference  as  according  more  with 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  rest  of  God's  book,  and 
especially  with  the  simple  and  perfect  teaching  of 
our  duty  by  Our  Lord  in  the  Gospels. 

Eeferring  to  Appendix  B  for  the  entire  passage 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  preceding,  we  come  to 
the  very  verses  upon  which  the  common  notion  of 
conscience  has  been  anchored,  as  stated  in  the  Book 
of  God,  especially  notable  as  the  text  of  Bishop 
Butler's  second  and  third  sermons  on  Human  ligature  : 
"For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  which 
show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, 
their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their 
thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing 
one  another,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men,"  etc.  (ii.  14-16). 


388  THE  KEIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "  THE  REIGN   OP   LAW." 

The  first  thing  to  be  observed,  is  that  at  least  the 
chief  reference  is  not  at  all  to  the  present  judgment 
of  men,  but  to  "  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  "  at 
the  end  of  time.  The  second  is  that  this  is  not  said 
of  all  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike,  or  even  of  all  the 
latter,  but  only  of  such  of  them  as  "  do  the  works  of 
the  law,"  or  perhaps,  if  there  be  any  such  persons.  If 
it  be  said  that  nevertheless  if  there  be  such  a  con- 
science in  any  man,  it  is  a  just  inference  that  it  is  in 
all  men,  that  is  quite  another  thing.  It  certainly  is 
not  near  as  strong  in  proof  of  such  a  revelation  as  if 
it  were  said  in  so  many  words  or  their  equivalent : 
"Every  soul  of  man  has  a  conscience,  which  is  the 
voice  of  God  within  him  telling  him  what  is  his 
duty  on  every  occasion,  and  which  it  is  his  first  duty 
to  obey." 

So  Bishop  Butler  in  his  second  sermon  makes  a 
serious  mistake  in  saying :  ''  Every  man  is  naturally 
a  law  unto  himself,  that  every  man  may  find  within 
himself  the  rule  of  right  and  obligation  to  follow  it. 
This  St.  Paul  affirms  in  the  words  of  the  text^'  &c.  It 
does  not  occur  to  him  that  St.  Paul  afiirms  some- 
thing else,  and  that  it  is  for  him  to  show,  if  he  can, 
that  the  Apostle's  words  involve  his  proposition. 

Bishop  Butler  also  in  this  account  of  Human 
Nature  fails  to  take  notice  of  so  important  a  fact  as 
the  Fall  of  man,  by  which  none  of  the  following 
generations  are  born  as  the  first  man  was  made. 
Not  only  is  no  true  account  of  our  moral  nature 
possible  without  stating  this  wonderful  duplicity  of 
it,  an  original  ideal  and  perfect  nature,  and  an  inher- 


THE  ETERNITY  AND  SELF-EXISTENCE  OF   GOD.  389 

ited  and  actual  degraded  nature,  but  that  true 
account  would  have  led  him  to  collate  his  text  with 
the  other  parts  of  St.  Paul's  great  argument,  espe- 
cially its  conclusion  that  "  all  have  sinned,"  &c.  He 
might  then  even  have  preferred  that  other  construc- 
tion at  which  I  have  hinted,  which  makes  the  four- 
teenth verse  read  rather  thus  :  "  Even  if  the  nations 
(heathen)  which  were  without  that  written  statement 
of  the  will  of  God  which  the  Jews  had  in  the  law 
given  by  Moses,  should  of  themselves  perform  what 
is  written  in  that  law,  it  would  be  no  less  that  same 
will  of  Grod  obeyed,  His  law  known  to  them  by  the 
original  tradition,  and  recalled  to  them  by  all  of  life 
around  and  within  them,  without  a  word  of  writing, 
and  however  indistinctly  the  thought  of  the  One 
True  God  may  have  become." 

But  even  if,  in  spite  of  all  the  terrible  words  of 
truth  that  have  preceded,  of  how  all  heathen  were 
"given  over  to  a  reprobate  mind"  (I.  28) — and  all 
the  universal  conclusions  in  the  III.  chapter  of  this 
reasoning,  as  that  "  there  is  none  righteous ;  no  not 
one,"  &c.,  we  allow  that  he  asserts  as  a  fact  that 
some  Gentiles  "6?o  the  things  contained  in  God's 
law,"  we  must  admit  that  we  have  not  yet  that 
statement  of  "  conscience  "  upon  which  all  Christian 
ethicists  now  insist.  To  ascertain  whether  *it  is 
fairly  involved  in  these  words,  and  learn  all  that  God 
teaches  us  by  them,  let  us  sound  them  anew  and  care- 
fully. Let  us  notice  first  that  "  the  law  "  as  spoken 
of  here,  is  not  precisely  the  whole  duty  of  man,  but 
a  certain  statement  in  words  given  to  the  Israelites. 


390        THE   REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  REIGN  OF  LAW." 

Now  if  some  other  groat  communities  of  men,  ra  eOvq^ 
the  nations,  (it  is  not  said  of  individual  "  Gentiles,") 
do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law  (some  of 
the  duties  which  are  mentioned  in  the  law  of  Moses), 
these  not  having  the  law,  (that  written  statement  of 
God's  will)  are  a  law  unto  themselves."  Their  own 
thoughts  furnish  them  with  that  law  or  statement 
of  God's  will  which  the  Jews  had  in  a  written  Word. 
So  far  wo  are  all  agreed. 

But  let  us  look  farther  and  see  what  certainly  is 
7iot  included  in  this.  First,  it  does  not  teach  that 
each  soul  can  make  its  own  ckity.  That  is  decided 
by  God's  will  and  not  man's.  Then  this  is  not  said 
of  individuals:*  "  they  (the  nations)  having  not  the 
law  (of  the  sacred  nation)  are  a  law  unto  themselves  ; 
their  laws,  institutions  and  religions,  false,  imperfect, 
immoral  even  as  they  have  become  in  that  dreadful 
descent  from  original  knowledge  of  God  which  is 
described  in  the  first  chapter,  these  still  contain 
enough  of  the  primeval  truth  to  convict  them  of  sin 
in  the  Judgment  Day.  And  as  the  following  verse 
says,  with  these  go  the  thoughts  of  each  soul ;  its 
idea  of  Divine  power  and  of  obedience  to  that  in 
right  doing ;  thoughts  which  have  come  down  from 
the  daj^s  when  the  Lord  God  talked  with  the  first 
man,  and  to  which  all  man's  nature  and  destiny  so 

*It  ia  true  that  a  secondary  sense  of  this  word  was  common  araons;  the 
Greek-speaking  Jews,  so  that  they  sometimes  spoke  of  individuals  of 
"the  nations"  by  that  term,  or  "Gentiles"  as  the  A.  V.  then  renders 
it.  Jiut  a  practical  scrutiny  of  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  N.  T.  will  con- 
vince any  candid  person  that  it  does  not  need  such  a  departure  from  the 
ordinary  meaning  once  in  ten  times.  A  genuine  search  after  the  divine 
meaning  here  cannot  aflbrd  to  leave  this  matter  unnoticed,  and  so  learn 
something  from  the  fact  that  St.  Paul  speaks  here  not  of  Graikos  or 
ethnikoi,  but  of  "  ta  iOvyj.^^ 


THE  ETEKNITY  AND   SELF- EXISTENCE  OP  GOD.  391 

respond  and  correspond  that  they  can  never  die  out 
tvmong  men,  as  the  youngest  child  hears  them 
uttered  around  it,  and  takes  them  at  once  into  all 
its  thoughts. 

Hoxo  then  does  this  *•'  law  unto  themselves,"  this 
statement  of  God's  will  and  their  duty,  come  to  those 
who  have  not  a  verbal  statement  of  it,  such  as  that 
favored  people  had  to  whom  were  committed  the 
written  "  oracles  of  God  "?  Now  certainly  if  we  are 
told  anywhere  else  in  God's  Word  that  He  had  made 
man  with  a  special  faculty  called  "  conscience,"  or 
any  other  name  you  please,  which  invariably  and 
perfectly  tells  each  one  of  our  race  his  duty  ;  whose 
"  dictates  "  he  is  bound  to  hear  and  obey,  by  which 
means  he  will  always  do  right,  then  we  should 
probably  refer  this  "  law  unto  ourselves "  to  that 
faculty.  But  no  one  claims  to  cite  any  such  passage. 
On  the  contrary,  those  who  afiirm  such  a  faculty,  if 
called  upon  for  proof  of  it  from  H0I3'  Writ,  repair 
only  as  Bishop  Butler  does,  to  these  very  words  of 
St.  Paul  which  we  are  now  studying. 

Do  they  say  it?  "Yes,"  says  some  one;  "for 
they  certainly  mean  something,  and  what  else  can  it 
be  ?  "  That  is  a  very  questionable  way  of  finding 
the  meaning  of  God's  Word.  Can  we  have  any 
reverence  or  confidence  in  it  unless  we  think  of  it  as 
shining  with  its  own  light  and  not  meaning  some- 
thing merely  because  no  one  suggests  any  other? 
But  we  are  in  no  such  quandarj^  I  have  already 
alluded  to,  and  will  now  more  fully  state,  an  account 
of  this  law  of  the  Gentiles  unto  themselves,  which, 


393        THE   REIGN   OF  GOD   NOT   "THE   REIGN  OP  LAW." 

unlike  the  popular  theory  of  "  conscience,"  is  entirely 
in  accord  with  the  rest  of  Grod's  Word,  with  all  this 
veiy  argument  of  St.  Paul,  with  our  best  reason  so 
far  as  we  can  apply  it  to  such  matters,  and,  above 
all,  with  the  personal  teaching  of  Our  Lord  and 
Saviour  about  the  whole  duty  of  man. 

The  very  purpose  of  man's  existence  being  to  love 
God  with  all  his  soul,  that  purpose  taken  up  by 
human  will  becomes  the  greatest  of  sentiments, 
and  finds  its  ambition  and  action  in  doing  all  His 
v^ill.  That  will  was  made  known  to  the  first  of  our 
race  in  direct  words  ;  and  all  the  nature  of  man,  i.  e, 
bis  constitution  as  God  made  him,  responded  to  this 
with  assent  and  with  constantly  reminding  him  of  it, 
just  as  the  knowledge  of  the  "  eternal  powder  and 
Godhead,"  given  at  the  same  time,  was  testified  to 
and  recalled  in  each  man's  thoughts  by  the  sight  of 
*'  the  things  that  were  made  "  (i.  20,  &c.).  Thus, 
though  the  whole  race  fell  from  the  first  innocence 
and  piety,  while  one  small  nation  had  a  "  law"  given 
to  it  of  true  religion  and  true  duty,  the  others  not 
thus  favored  were  not  by  this  relieved  from  that 
great  judgment  of  God  upon  all,  either  in  his  present 
government  or  in  that  last  day  of  time  when  "  before 
Him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations  "  {izavra  ra  edv-r}). 

The  tradition  and  memory  of  even  this  piety  and 
virtue,  if  they  will  pause  in  passion  and  selfishness  to 
give  any  thought  to  them,  are  a  declaration  (that  is, 
law)  to  them  of  their  duty,  by  which  they  shall  be 
judged — commended  if  they  obey,  condemned  if  they 
disobey.     But  alas,  the  latter  is  the  universal  fact 


THE   ETERNITY  AND   SELF  EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  S93 

with  them  all  as  well  as  with  Jews  judged  by  "  the 
law ";  so  that  if  any  of  either  class  are  not  ruined 
forever,  it  will  not  be  from  man's  merit,  but  from 
Grod's  mere  mercy. 

The  phrase  "  do  by  nature  "  is  just  as  intelligible, 
and  more  so,  in  this  interpretation  as  in  the  other. 
Nature  ((poatd)  is  evidently  here  used  in  the  general 
method  of  the  New  Testament  to  denote  the  consti- 
tution of  creatures  as  God  has  made  them  —  what 
they  are  by  birth,  or  that  which  is  their  usual  way  of 
action  or  existence.  Man,  as  we  have  before  noticed, 
is  that  anomalous  creature  who  has  now  in  fact  a 
nature  contrary  to  his  original  nature.  He  is  now 
born,  not  as  he  was  first  made,  in  the  Divine  image 
of  purity  and  love,  but  perverse  and  ungodly,  unless 
by  the  great  miracle  of  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus 
Our  Lord  he  is  born  again  to  pardon  and  holiness. 
Yet  in  the  midst  of  that  ruin  of  his  fall  there 
remains  always  some  knowledge  of  Divine  things 
and  some  sense  of  the  excellence  of  virtue.  This  is 
what  St.  Paul  recognized  when  he  said  to  all  the 
Athenians  who  gathered  to  hear  him.  Epicureans  as 
well  as  Stoics  or  Platonists,  orthodox  pagans  as  well 
as  speculating  philosophers  :  *'  Whom  therefore  ye 
ignorantly  worship,  Him  declare  I  unto  you." 

So  when  axxy  one  of  these  acts  according  to  this 
knowledge  in  its  most  imperfect  form,  he  is  said  to 
do  this  *'  by  nature."  And  so  when  the  people  more 
favored  than  others  in  having  also  a  written  law  of 
God  looks  down  upon  the  other  nations,  it  is  re- 
minded that  all  men  alike  are  guilty  before   God; 


394    THE  REIGN  OP  GOD  NOT  "  THE  REIGN  OP  LAW." 

•» 

these  Israelites  as  convicted  by  that  very  Holy 
Scripture  of  which  they  boast,  the  others  by  those 
unwritten  traditions  and  memories  which,  even  with 
all  allowance  for  the  decays  and  corruptions  of 
ages,  they  so  fearfully  violate. 

The  following  words  complete  this  sense  and  make 
it  more  clear:  "Which  show  the  work  of  the  law 
(the  same  effect  as  of  a  written  law)  written  (not  the 
law,  but  the  effect;  for  it  is  ypar.rov,  not  ypa-Kvou)  in 
their  hearts  (their  memories  and  thoughts),  their 
consciousness  (self-judgment)  also  bearing  witness,  and 
their  thoughts  among  themselves  accusing  or  else 
excusing  one  another,  in  the  day  when  God  shall 
judge  the  secrets  of  men,"  &c.  I  would  also  call  the 
attention  of  careful  students  to  the  singular  number  of 
"conscience,"  whether  or  not  as  compared  with  the 
plural  of  *'  thoughts,"  and  ask  them  whether  this  is 
not  of  itself  almost  decisive  as  to  the  correctness  of 
my  rendering. 

Why  is  not  what  has  now  been  given  the  true  and 
natural  meaning  of  the  whole  passage?  It  is  accor- 
dant with  the  fact  of  an  original  and  universal  pure 
religion.  It  is  perfectly  in  subjection  to  that  perfect 
doctrine  of  man's  duty  which  our  Lord  Himself 
taught  in  Palestine.  Why  then  interpret  St.  Paul 
otherwise  in  order  that  he  may  introduce  into  Chris- 
tian belief  another  notion  of  a  Divine  voice  set  in 
each  man's  soul  by  original  creation,  to  obey  the 
"  dictates  "  of  which  is  his  first  and  perfect  duty  ? 
Does  it  not  seem  strange  to  those  who  believe  this 
that  we  have  nowhere  in  the  Word  of  God  that 


THE   ETERNITY   AND   SELF-EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  395 

precept  with  which  all  our  modern  ethics  abound  : 
"  Thou  shalt  obey  the  dictates  of  thy  conscience  "? 
Will  any  one  meet  this  question  as  all  the  challenges 
of  the  silence  of  Holy  Scripture  about  "  natural  law," 
&c.,  are  met,  by  saying  that  the  Bible  was  not 
meant  to  teach  good  morals?  Compare  this  with 
the  thousand  voices  of  the  Holy  Book  which  most 
fully  and  yet  simply  command  us  to  obey  the  voice, 
the  will  of  God. 

If  I  have  shown  that  the  usual  notion  of  conscience 
is  not  found  here,  this  virtually  carries  with  it  all 
the  other  passages  in  the  Epistles  where  the  term 
appears.  Any  one  can  substitute  consciousness, 
self-knowledge,  or  some  of  the  other  real  meanings 
of  (Tuvsidrjffca  in  any  such  sentence,  and  find  the  real 
sense  of  the  writer.  Even  in  the  few  cases  where 
our  prepossessions  would  still  obscure  this  true 
sense,  did  time  allow,  I  could  now  remove  the  diffi- 
culty. But  I  would  particularly  notice  that  part  of 
St.  Paul's  I.  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (viii.-x.)  in 
which  he  discusses  the  matter  of  eating  meat  which 
has  been  sacrificed  in  a  heathen  temple.  In  this  the 
term  in  question  occurs  eight  times,  and  among 
these  in  such  phrases  as  ^'  weak  conscience "  and 
**  conscience'  sake."  In  substance  the  wiser  Chris- 
tian is  advised  to  forego  something  which  he  has  a 
right  to  do,  not  in  "obeying  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience,"  but  on  account  of  the  other  man's. 
This  has  no  meaning  as  of  one's  own  conscience 
being  for  each  man  the  voice  of  God  in  his  soul  and 
the  certain  law  of  his  duty  ;  but  is  plain  enough  of 


S96  THE   REIGN   OF   GOD   NOT   "THE   T.EIGN    OP   LAW." 


one's  self-judgment,  which  may  be  more  or  less 
erroneous. 

The  discrepancy  of  this  notion  with  all  other  truth 
about  man's  nature  as  Our  Lord  in  His  personal 
teaching  recognized  it,  and  as  it  is  quite  clearly  and 
simply  implied  in  the  other  Scriptures,  is  a  decisive 
objection.  With  this  agrees  our  wisest  conscious- 
ness, that  we  are  compounded  of  "  bod}^,  soul  and 
spirit" — the  material,  the  living,  and  the  spiritual. 
With  this  last  part  man  can  know  truth  of  various 
kinds,  and  exercise  will  and  love  upon  various  ob- 
jects. But  knowledge  and  choice  about  God  and 
about  duty  are  the  highest  spiritual  actions,  are 
those  for  which  indeed  the  others  exist.  To  call 
this  use  of  our  intelligence,  another  part  or  faculty  of 
our  nature,  and  fasten  upon  it  the  term  "  conscience," 
is  no  wiser  than  it  would  be  to  call  the  knowledge  of 
pains  and  dangers  our  "  inscience,"  and  that  of  bodily 
pleasures  and  desires  our  "  a^science,"  and  divide 
the  soul  up  into  that  many  parts.  Indeed  we  have 
no  right  to  stop  there.  Let  us  suppose  as  many 
^'  faculties "  as  there  are  things  that  a  man  may 
know  or  choose.  The  prevailing  notion  of  conscience 
is  thus  plainly  a  gratuitous  violation  of  that  just 
principle  which  Sir  William  Hamilton  calls  "  the  law 
of  parcimony." 

Then  also  this  notion  obscures,  if  it  docs  not 
directly  contradict,  the  truth  that  God  the  Holy 
Ghost  does  affect  the  souls  of  men  directly,  both 
enlightening  them  with  truth  and  inclining  or  moving 
them  to  do  right.     If  the  imagined  "conscience  "  is 


THE   ETERNITY  AND   SELF-EXISTENCE   OF   GOD.  397 

sucli  a  divine  voice  and  influence  in  all  men  alike, 
and  a  part  of  their  natural  constitution,  what  need 
and  what  place  for  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost? 
We  might  even  ask  what  use  of  any  Word  of  God, 
and  put  the  question  which  St.  Paul  supposes  of  his 
opposer,  "  What  advantage  then  has  the  Jew  "  (or  the 
Christian  either)  without  being  able  to  make  his 
triumphant  answer^  "  Much  every  way." 

Thus,  Bishop  Butler,  though  beyond  all  doubt  a 
sound  and  firm  believer  in  the  Fall  of  Man,  and  in 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  seems  forced  by  his  philosoph- 
ical theory  to  be  silent  about  both  in  treating  (even 
in  sermon?)  of  the  moral  goodness  of  men.  I  find  a 
great  contrast  to  this  when  this  same  St.  Paul  treats 
of  the  same  matters  in  the  I.  Ep.  to  the  Corinthians 
(chap,  ii.)  and  says  that  "man's  wisdom,"  his  best 
thoughts  according  to  his  actual  constitution — what 
God  first  made  him  modified  by  the  Fall,  is  incom- 
petent to  discover  "  the  things  of  God."  We  have  a 
power  of  knowing  or  apprehending  them,  but  only 
as  He  reveals  them.  "  For  what  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  a  man  save  the  spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in 
him  :  even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man 
but  the  Spirit  of  God.  Now,  we  have  received,  not  the 
s;pirit  of  the  world,  i.  e.  our  mere  constitution — xo(t/jlo<;, 
without  words  from  God,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of 
God,  that  we  inight  know  the  things  which  are 
freely  given  us  of  God," 

In  this,  as  I  apprehend,  the  greatest  distinction  is 
drawn  between  any  such  notions  about  Divine  things 
and  duties  as  we  may  elaborate  by  our  intellectual 
34 


398  THE  REIGN   OP  GOD  2sOT   "TUB  REIGN   OP  LAW." 

processes,  and  real  knowledge  of  them  given  us  in 
words  by  God  Himself.  The  former  are  ilhisive  and 
untrustworthy:  the  latter  are  truth.  This  indicates 
that  human  speech  is  necessary  to  true  religion,  and 
was  given  to  us  chiefly  for  that  purpose;  is  neither 
one  of  the  inventions  of  ages  of  human  development, 
nor  later  than  and  only  accidentally  connected  with 
the  knowledge  of  God.  Even  our  physical  research 
seems  to  me  to  have  disclosed  this  in  the  fact,  if  it  be 
one,  lately  announced,  that  persons  born  deaf  and 
dumb  have  no  idea  of  God  until  they  are  taught 
some  sort  of  language. 

Finally,  the  very  discrepancies  and  extravagances 
of  those  who  describe  this  imaginary  conscience 
suggest  error.  As  an  instance  of  this,  take  the 
article  "  Conscience"  in  Blunt's  Theolog.  Diet.,  and 
besides  almost  everything  which  the  Word  of  God 
assumes  of  the  whole  spirit  of  man,  we  are  as- 
sured that  "it  is  the  absolute  rule  of  right;"  "it  is 
the  utterance  of  God's  voice  in  the  soul."  How  does 
that  agree  with  the  Hindoo's  conscience  as  he  obeys 
it  by  drowning  his  old  father  in  the  Ganges,  or  with 
Plato's  when  he,  with  all  his  elevated  thoughts 
(hardly  if  at  all  short  of  inspiration  according  to  some 
of  his  Christian  admirers,)  sees  no  wrong  in  un- 
natural crimes?  How  can  there  then  be  a  "per- 
verted conscience,"  as  facts  force  these  theorists  to 
allow  ?  More  than  all,  what  can  some  expressions 
mean  which  they  quote  from  Holy  Scriptures  as 
mentions  of  this:  an  ''evil  conscience,"  a  *' defiled 
conscience"  and  the  like?     All  is  plain  enough  of  a 


THE   ETERNITY  AND   SELF-EXISTENCE   OP   GOD.  399 

conscience  which  is  simply  a  man's  consciousness  or 
reflection  upon  his  own  thoughts.  But  what  of  an 
absolute  rule  of  right,  or,  yet  more,  an  *'  utterance 
of  God's  voice,"  which  is  "  evil  "  or  "  defiled  "  ? 

But  the  chief,  the  decisive  disproof  of  this  notion 
is  in  what  I  have  already  adverted  to,  that  the 
greatest  teacher  of  morals  who  ever  walked  the 
earth,  who,  in  an  incomparable  sense  "knew  what 
was  in  man,"  never  told  those  who  heard  Him  of 
their  "consciences,"  and  that  they  should  obey 
their  "  dictates."  He  simply  spoke  to  them  of  doing 
the  will  and  obeying  the  commandments  of  God. 
He  addressed  men  as  simple  spiritual  persons  who 
had  the  power  of  knowing  and  lovipg,  which  they 
ought  to  apply  first  and  chiefly  to  God,  and  next  to 
their  fellow-men  in  duty.  He  never  supposes  or 
suggests  to  them  the  getting  knowledge  about  this 
from  within  themselves,  but  from  without  and  from 
above.  He  makes  this  comparison  :  "  The  eye  is  the 
lamp  of  the  body."  In  what  way  ?  Simply  as  an 
inlet  for  the  light  shining  outside.  He  says  still 
more  expressly :  "  If  any  man  walk  in  the  day  he 
stumbleth  not,  because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this 
world."  The  glorious  rays  of  the  sun  without  him 
enter  within.  "  But  if  a  man  walk  in  the  night,"  if 
there  be  no  heavenlj^  knowledge  to  come  to  him,  "  he 
stumbleth,  because  there  is  no  light  in  him.'" 

I  conchide  then  that  the  notion  of  a  "natural 
religion  "  which  men  get  otherwise  than  by  words 
from  God,  and  that  of  ^'conscience"  as  commonly 
understood,  are  not  found   or  recognized    in   Holy 


400         THE  REIGN  OF   GOD  NOT   "THE  RKIGN  OF   LAW." 

Scripture,  but  are  really  contrary  to  it;  that  tbey 
began  with  some  human  speculations,  were  attached 
to  some  verbal  resemblances  in  Scripture  and  pre- 
vailing among  philosophic  Christians,  have  been 
argued  from  such  texts  as  these  b}^  certain  gi-eat 
writers  who  evidently  did  not  first  study  the  words 
of  Scripture  to  find  their  meaning,  but  taking  the 
philosophic  theories  for  granted  and  to  be  the  best 
antidote  to  infidel  bad  morals,  assumed  that  they 
must  be  contained  in  those  words  of  St.  Paul,  as  they 
certainly  are  nowhere  else  in  "God's  Word  written." 
Our  duty  then  is  with  them  and  other  such  errois, 
according  to  certain  other  words  which  that  holy 
Apostle  was  inspired  of  God  to  write,  to  "cast  down 
reasonings  and  every  high  thing  that  exalteth  itself 
against  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  bring  into  captivity 
every  thought  (even  the  most  ambitious  speculations 
of  the  greatest  men)  to  the  obedience  of  Christ." 


t 


Date  Due                        | 

m^ 

f 

^^-^^s 


;fe-^ 


>3  pl^A- 


